On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 02:32:06AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > I am Cc'ing the DPL for clarification.
[ then please do so at leader@d.o ] > In contrast, the patent FAQ at > http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq > is good. > > So, who, in particular, wrote the patent policy at > http://www.debian.org/legal/patent The same people who wrote the patent FAQ, i.e. Debian legal counsel via SPI, at SFLC. There is no contradiction between the two documents. Each one of us is free to *think* that a piece of software in the Debian archive is "patent encumbered", whatever that means, and possibly thinking so due to the legitimate interests of patent owners that want *everybody* to think pieces of software are encumbered by their own patents (it is like asking the restaurant owner if the food is good, right?). But until it is proven that the specific version of a software we distribute in Debian is in violation of some patents, I *personally* don't think we have reasons to believe it is the case. Nor we have any interest to look into it (which is sad, but that is pretty much what the patent system induces people to do). I also duly notice that, while discussing general matters is fine, discussing specific issues is in violation of what the patent-faq recommends Free Software projects to do. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o . Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120328095557.ga8...@upsilon.cc
