On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:27:45PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:31:32AM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > >... > > <IMVHO> > > > > I think is that Unisys' pateting position is currently > > defendable in a court outside USA, as well as SCO claims about > >... > > "defendable" means you have to defend yourself, and lawsuits aren't > cheap. >
Mmm, damn non-native english speaking :) I mean that IMHO SCO and Unisys patents are quite on the same plane. It's difficult that they could really obtain something (but for FUD) in a European court currently, for instance. Software patents are not so easy to protect outside US. Sw patenting outside US is very, very questionable (I speak for Europe at least). > > It's probably time for the project to have a seriuos position > > about patenting and not remove anything at all, but fighting for our > > software freedom, when ever needed. > > "and not remove anything at all" is impossible, consider e.g. the > effects if a patent holder would start to sue mirrors or users of main. > So, if we have to follow this kind of reasoning you should open a seriuous bug report to remove all linux kernels from debian main. I cannot see any difference among SCO and Unisys. Both them can _potentially_ sue our users and mirrors. Also the interested users for the kernel are more than those of LZW algorithm. > Unfortunaltely, even "fighting for our software freedom" wouldn't always > work, since the patent holders often are in a very good legal position. > > > </IMVHO> > > > > PS: please consider to continue the discussion off BTS. > > Why? I consider it convenient to say: > > You can read our discussion at > http://bugs.debian.org/220464 > ok -- Francesco P. Lovergine
