Hi Steve,
> We're certainly all well aware of the patents that are being
> enforced against mp3 encoders, and Debian does not ship any mp3
> encoders.
So it's OK for Debian users to 'consume content' in MP3 format but
they can't make and distribute their own music in the same format?
It's not r
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:27:55AM +0100, Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> > We're certainly all well aware of the patents that are being
> > enforced against mp3 encoders, and Debian does not ship any mp3
> > encoders.
> So it's OK for Debian users to 'consume content' in MP3 format but
> they
> Software patents are not legal in Europe. Period. The European
> patent convention from 1972 explicitly excludes software from
> patentability. Attempts to pass legislation that would have
> allowed software to become patentable have failed. The worst
> thing we could do now is give in to th
On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Are you suggesting that the use of time -> frequency domain mapping
> > > is not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid
On 7/18/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ditto, for Brasil. Software patents are explicitly excluded in our
> Industrial Property (= Patents + Trademarks) Act (Law 9279/96),
> section 10, V: "
[snip]
> Obviously, only inventions (or utility models) can be patented.
Now tha
On 7/18/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that the use of time -> frequency domain mapping
> > is not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents?
>
> If you want to know what I am suggesting, wit
On 7/18/05, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[consistently sane and well-judged things about MP3 and patents generally]
It does, however, strike me that it would be prudent for someone
appropriately qualified (as I am not) to look closely at the claims of
US #5,579,430 and, generally, the
On 7/15/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I very carefully made a distinction between "technology described by
> > the patents" and "patented technology" in the message you're responding
> > to.
> >
> > One example of technolo
On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD software
> isn't) and then without a license, because that gives us almost no
> rights whatsoever.
There is no such thing as software that isn't copyrighted. All original
ex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In any case, I don't think denying our users access to files they have every
>legal right to use is an appropriate way to try to kill off the mp3 format.
>Even if it were, would you really have us do so by treating unsubstantiated
>patent claims about mp3 decoding as if t
On 7/18/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the use of time -> frequency domain mapping
> is not ostensibly covered by the presumptively valid patents?
If you want to know what I am suggesting, with regard to a particular
patent from the Fraunhofer suite (which I h
On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 20:43 -0400, Rob Crowther wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I run Debian and I recently wrote a small Python program. However,
> while I do maintain it, I have placed it in the public domain. I read
> the Debian policy manual. After asking for more information about
> licensing issues and
Summary: it looks to me like current US and European law on the
patentability of math, software, and business methods are already
very, very closely aligned. Gripe, if you like, about the USPTO's
ignorance of the prior art in software-intensive fields, and about the
unholy alliance between patent
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:45 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD software
> > isn't) and then without a license, because that gives us almost no
> > rights whatsoever.
>
> There is
On Monday 18 July 2005 03:13 pm, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 11:45 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > > What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD
> > > software isn't) and then without a license, beca
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Monday 18 July 2005 11:07 am, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > What we *don't* want, is software that is copyrighted (which PD software
> > isn't) and then without a license, because that gives us almost no
> > rights whatsoever.
>
> There is no such thing
On 7/18/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sigh. The original paragraph had a little parenthetical note about how some
> software is not actually copyrighted. In addition to U.S. Government works,
> software that does not comprise expression is also non-copyrighted, as was
> discussed
Licence text included at end of mail.
I'll go over the licence part by part.
Preamble: Belive it or not a preamble is not legally a no-op. It establishes
intent which is sometimes
more important than the actual wording.
Definitions: There is nothing important in this section. The relevence of
On Monday 18 July 2005 11:12 pm, you wrote:
> >FWIW, I would not touch SNEeSe or any fragment derived from it with a
> >ten-foot pole unless they can tell you where sneese.dat came from and
> >what's in it.
>
> Well file(1) said it is an allegro datafile, so I apt-get'ed liballegro-dev
> and try ex
19 matches
Mail list logo
