> > > Amend non-free definition (#46522) > > > * Stalled. > > > * Proposed by Raul Miller; seconded by Marco d'Itri, Joseph Carter > > > and Joel Klecker. > > > * Change definition of non-free to "contains packages which are not > > > compliant with the DFSG". Currently, non-free includes packages > > > with patent problems or other legal issues.
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 08:47:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > If we move all this stuff into main, we'll be widely distributing stuff > that we know is covered by patent restrictions in areas where we're > well aware we're distributing it, and we'll be specifically telling > people that it's freely usable and distributable. non-us/main This does bring up some of the weaknesses of non-us (in some cases we'll want it to be non-de as well). > This seems like it'd be enough for someone feeling nasty to sue SPI for > contributory infringement of some patent or other. I think contributory infringement is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. In the U.S., patents are guilty till proven innocent, but non-free doesn't protect us from that. -- Raul
