On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 1:37 PM Mauro Mozzarelli <ma...@ezplanet.org> wrote: > > Since OpenWrt is NOT US Based and in fact it appears to be mostly > supported with EU contributions, we should be following the more liberal > EU policies. > > Personally I am against software patents and I campaigned for the > decision that the EU parliament took to ban them despite significant > lobby from US corporations that would have wanted to limit and > monopolize software development. > > As we know US companies even patent human genome, which is absurd. I happen to agree but IANAL. > > I am proud of the EU decision and I believe that OpenWrt should be > aligned with that spirit. Do you believe that BUILD_PATENTED should be turned on by default? https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/master/config/Config-build.in#L64 > > > Best regards, > Mauro > > On 07/08/2020 21:41, Rosen Penev wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:11 AM Etienne Champetier > > <champetier.etie...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Rosen, > >> > >> Le lun. 3 août 2020 à 00:04, Rosen Penev <ros...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >>> Recently there's been a pull request to get patented functionality in > >>> the packages feed: https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/12992 > >>> > >>> Which pointed me to this lovely description: > >>> https://www.videolan.org/legal.html > >>> > >>> Two excerpts: > >>> > >>> In the USA, you should check out the US Copyright Office decision that > >>> allows circumvention in some cases. > >>> VideoLAN is NOT a US-based organization and is therefore outside US > >>> jurisdiction. > >>> > >>> Neither French law nor European conventions recognize software as > >>> patentable (see French section below). > >>> Therefore, software patents licenses do not apply on VideoLAN software. > >>> > >>> The commit that disabled patented packages is: > >>> https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/dc555d003c21679c8c94ac7f5c74cbd5cd089ae0 > >>> > >>> This caused controversy regarding ffmpeg at the time since it meant > >>> that minidlna would be unavailable. > >>> > >>> Which brings me to my question. How should BUILD_PATENTED be treated? > >>> OpenWrt as far as I know is not US based. > >> OpenWrt is represented by a US non profit, so not sure where it is based. > >> https://openwrt.org/about > >>> The remerged OpenWrt project is legally represented by the Software in > >>> the Public Interest (SPI) - an US 501(c)(3) non-profit organization which > >>> is managing our OpenWrt trademark, handling our donations and helping us > >>> with legal problems. > >> Software Freedom Conservancy (future replacement of SPI) is also US based > > Sounds problematic then. > >> Best > >> > >> Etienne > >> > >>> Whenever discussion about patents arise, I usually point to Fedora > >>> whose parent company is Red Hat, which is based in the US. There are > >>> many things that they do not distribute that OpenWrt does for legal > >>> reasons. Should Fedora's practices be mirrored or should a more > >>> liberal policy regarding patented functionality be taken? > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> openwrt-devel mailing list > >>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > >>> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > > openwrt-devel mailing list > > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
