Am 2007-04-10 13:51:13, schrieb Neil Williams: > IANAL, but being open source, a patent lawyer would probably try to > claim that distributing the code ALLOWS the infringement of the patent > as if that makes Debian complicit in the infringement. Whether the code > actually does include an implementation of the patented algorithm > hasn't been confirmed here - it could just be a linkage.
Hmmm, Debian BINARIES do not use the code so it is the $USER choice
to download the source and enable it, WHICH he/she can do it legal
IF he/she has obtained an INDIVIDUAL LICENSE from the PATENT OWNER.
So I think, Distributing the Source for it but not compiling it
into the binries should be OK.
Note: I have a customer which need a functionality in one of the
Debian packages which I had only to enable and rebuild the
package (I have failed to get the ORIGINAL source from
upstream running on Debian). Since my customer HAS a legal
licence, he was realy happy about the simple migration.
In my eyes, such source codes should be distributed but not
enabled by default.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature
