On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote: >Barak, I agree with your purpose, and completely disagree with your >approach. > >Beyond some problems with practical matters (I think patent law varies >way too widely to provide accurate information without undue burden on >the maintainers), it has two fundamental flaws: > >1. It puts a burden on our users that I believe violates our social >contract (in spirit, if not in letter). I think that we've long implied >that software in main is "safe to use", and the users trust that we've >interpeted the licenses such that they can use and modify the software >without fear of reprisal. The click-through-license you've proposed >violates that.
However, I really see no reason why Barak's "software patents are nasty" dialog shouldn't be a strong advisory for patented stuff in non-free... Given that Debian really can't demand much about something that isn't officially a part of it. >2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and >thus does not "stay true to our ideals". It can be worded that Debian disagrees strongly with the idea of patented software, but pragmatically is providing it because of a percieved utility. Sort of like RMS's "non-free" question in base, except a bit longer and more preachy :) >-or- > >2b. It's an obviously cynical dodge of liability, and (to me, at least) is >an even worse violation of our ideals. > >It's simply not worth it. > >Steve > >[1] I'm not sure I'd argue that all software (actually algorithm) >patents are inherently invalid[2], just that the US Patent Office isn't >competent to judge "unobvious" or "prior-art". > >[2] Unlike "business-process" patents, which are completely bogus. > > > -- There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be produced. Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who!
