On 8/30/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... xor is patented.
For that matter, wikipedia currently lists five different patents
on perpetual motion devices.
The standards for getting a patent are low, and despite legal
practice to the contrary patents really should be treated as
Weakish Jiang wrote:
>
>
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> I thought we didn't care
>> about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
>> impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
>> patented.
>>
> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's fre
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
>> >> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
>> >The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular b
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
>> > Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
>> > interpretation of "software as such" as the European Patent Office.
>>
>> This means that they completely disres
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
>> illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we
>> should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so,
>> and p
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> The question was if that is indeed the way Debian does these things. And
> in
> particular, people do get sued for using the mpeg4 codec, IIUC. So does
> that
> mean we would at least consider it non-free? Or not distributable at all?
Non-distributable. If people are act
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According
> to the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the
> MPEG2/MPEG4
> codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is
> needed in order to use it, ap
Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
> > (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
>
> It hasn't.
Which mean HE or Canotix can be sued?
I do find such things not realy funny..
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
>> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
>> > (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
>>
>> It hasn't.
>
> Which mean HE or Canotix c
Am 2006-08-24 17:37:06, schrieb Matthew Garrett:
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
> > (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
>
> It hasn't.
Which mean HE or Canotix can be sued?
I do find such things not realy funny..
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is now, how does Ubuntu has gotten the Licence?
> (Yes I know, Mark is realy rich)
It hasn't.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA
Am 2006-08-18 21:12:59, schrieb Ben Finney:
> Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual licence
>
> Really? For any patent, from whomever holds it, in any jurisdiction,
Yes, I was contacting several of them and all
individual licence
Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > Of course. The German Supreme Court however has the same
> > interpretation of "software as such" as the European Patent Office.
>
> This means that they completely disrespect Article 52 [1]. However, th
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The DFSG is concerned with the rights that the copyright holder extends
> to us, and by extension, people using software in Debian. This does
> not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
TTBOMK, the DFSG does not refer to the copyright holder directly, nor
copyr
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 08:14:04AM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
> > > Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
> > > course, the current non-US server resides in Germany
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
> > Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
> > course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and Germany is
> > one of the rogue countries...
>
> Doesn't German paten
On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
> Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
> course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and Germany is
> one of the rogue countries...
Doesn't German patent law adhere to the EPC?
--
Magnu
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:02:17PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why we have main/Non-US?
> > 1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
> So we can make use of it. :)
This would be non-US-Japan-UK-Germany (IIRC
Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
> illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we
> should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so,
> and place the code on a server outsid
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why we have main/Non-US?
>
> 1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
So we can make use of it. :)
> 2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
> illegal to do so, the code was placed
Thank Adam for hir detailed explanation.
In fact, other people in this maillist used to give similar opinions,
but not in a so detailed (and clear) way.
I used to give such an assertion"any patent, unless it is licensed for
everyone's free use or not licensed at all, is against the DFSG." Now
thr
Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why we have main/Non-US?
1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, the code was placed on a server outside the US. It was
still legal to use this software
Stephen Gran wrote:
> The DFSG does not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
>
> Are you arguing that you would like Debian to remove every piece of
> software that might potentially be covered by a patent in any jurisdiction
> Debian distributes software to?
Why we have main/Non-US?
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
> > Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents.
> >
> > The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
> > about "the rights attached to the pro
This one time, at band camp, Ben Finney said:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> > point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
>
> The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
>
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:41:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> >> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
> >The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
> >ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
>> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
>The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
>about "the rights attached to the program" and other such phrases. To
>th
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
> point in arguing that patent restrictions violate thit.
The DFSG doesn't talk about any particular branch of law. It talks
about "the rights attached to the program" and other such ph
On 8/17/06, Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not reasonable to claim that we don't know the mpeg-4
is patented. It's well known.
In general, we do not know that filed patents are valid
patents.
In general, most patents which apply to programs that
run on general purpose computers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
>> opposite of current practice.
>I think it's against the DFSG1 "Free Redistribution" and the DFSG3
>"Derived Works".
Still, the DFSG does not addrss patents. This means that there is no
point in arguin
Am 2006-08-17 22:44:25, schrieb Weakish Jiang:
>
>
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> I thought we didn't care
> > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
> > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
> > patented.
> >
> Unless the patent
On 8/18/06, Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Gran wrote:
>> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
>> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
>
> This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
>
Stephen Gran wrote:
>> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
>> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
>
> This is untrue. The DGSF does not address patents. It's also the
> opposite of current practice.
I think it's against
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian does not handel any software patents
The Debian project deals with the freedom of software for users of
Debian. If that freedom is restricted by law, it doesn't matter the
means used.
> since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual
On Aug 17, 2006, at 16:44, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Patents on decoding something can not be enforced.
How so?
(Note that the unenforceability of the Welch patent against LZW
decompression was due to the way the claims were drafted--not due to
a general rule.)
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PRO
Am 2006-08-16 11:04:44, schrieb Bas Wijnen:
> Hello,
>
> When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux.
> According to
> the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the
> MPEG2/MPEG4
> codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is
> ne
This one time, at band camp, Weakish Jiang said:
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> > I thought we didn't care
> > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
> > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
> > patented.
> >
> Unless the patent is
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:43:51AM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
> >> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
> >
> >
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
>> all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced.
>
> That's an interesting assertion, which contradicts current behaviour.
IMO
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> It would be illegal for us
> to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know,
> and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely
> (actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop
> distributing when t
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:44:25PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> > I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced,
> > because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software,
> > considering the junk that gets patented.
> >
> Unless the
Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bas Wijnen wrote:
> I thought we didn't care
>> about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
>> impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
>> patented.
>>
> Unless the patent is licensed for
Bas Wijnen wrote:
I thought we didn't care
> about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely
> impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets
> patented.
>
Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at
all, it won
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:04:44AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to
> the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4
> codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid lic
On 8/16/06, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to
the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4
codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed
in
Hello,
When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to
the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4
codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed
in order to use it, appearantly.
My question is how De
46 matches
Mail list logo
