On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 08:32:27PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Hello developers, > > Could you give me your advice on this patend > problem ? I have not the connection time to > investigate this issue properly and anyway this > must be discussed here. > > Please CC me, thanks!
If true, this really sucks, but: * It's not the copyright license on libjpeg62 that is non-free; * The copyright holder of libjpeg62 is not the party attempting to use means other than copyright law to remove people's freedom to exercise the license; * There is no evidence that the copyright holder has colluded with the party claiming the patent such that the DFSG-free license on libjpeg62 was issued in bad faith. In other words, it is not the fault of the copyright holder(s) of libjpeg62 that some other party had a "submarine patent" in waiting. Therefore, a Debian archive outside jurisdictions where this patent is enforceable is the proper home for the software if the patent is enforceable against libjpeg62, not non-free. -- G. Branden Robinson | To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
pgpef6ovnONyr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
