Subject: Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package? - msg#00278

List: debian.devel.legal

Date: Prev Next Index Thread: Prev Next Index

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Does a patent make code non-DFSG-free?
>
> Perhaps Debian says "yes", but I don't quite understand the logic.

I think in general "no", but Debian long ago moved all gif-writing
programs to non-free. IIRC that was a deliberate decision in order
to promote the move to non-encumbered formats like PNG.

Since the only sane way to deal with patents (if there is a sane way)
is on a case-by-case basis, and we seem to have decided to deal
with this one by considering such code non-free, I think it makes
sense to apply the same decision to source code. (It doesn't make
sense to say that the source code is free but its binaries aren't.)

(I say "seem to have decided" because I don't expect complete consensus
in a project as large as this. However, this decision has been followed
consistently for as long as I've been part of the project. It also
doesn't make sense to change it now, only one year before the patent
expires anyway.)

> [...] In general, it doesn't philosophically make sense to
> declare a program to be non-DFSG-free just because certain
> applications of the (perhaps modified) program are illegal in certain
> countries.

I agree with this as a general principle. I think we should respond
to patents only if we receive specific threats from patent holders.
(Specific to the patent, not to us :-) We shouldn't wait _that_ long.)

> So, I think you fulfill the social contract better by warning users
> about possible patent problems rather than removing the code in cases
> where you are not actually forced to do so by some repressive
> government.

I don't agree with this as a general rule. We might decide to respond
this way with certain patents, but it should be a specific decision
based on the situation at hand.

Richard Braakman

(Sorry for the excessive parenthesation. I just woke up :)

Was this page helpful?

Thread at a glance:

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: [aspell-devel] Problems with aspell-en license

Branden Robinson <branden@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Under my analysis, it doesn't matter, because you can't copyright that > which is not copyrightable. Wether you call it copyright or not it doesn't change the fact that wordlists might fall under the IP-protection described by the European Union's Database Directive. So to distribute wordlists in the EU we have to be allowed to do so from the holder of the IP-rights (whatever you would call this specifc rights). No license - No distribution! One more time I would like to refere you to the debian-legal august thread about licensing of aspell-nl: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200208/msg00268.html> Or directly to the text J.H.M Dassen refered to in the August thread: <http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#directive> The second right, however, provides for a sui generis right that prohibits the extraction or reutilization of any database in which there has been a substantial investment in either obtaining, verification, or presentation of the data contents. Under this second right, there is no requirement for creativity or originality. In effect, this right gives databases in Europe the type of "sweat of the brow" protection that was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Feist. The sui generis right lasts for fifteen years from the date of the database's creation. The making of usable wordlists is a substantial investment in verification. The work on the danish dictionary is one of the most boring tasks I've ever been involved with in relation to open source. I don't want to know how many man month we have spend and how many we have to spend before we're comparable to the commercial dictionaries. -- Peter Makholm | Yes, you can fight it, but in the end the ultimate peter@xxxxxxxxxxx | goal of life is to have fun http://hacking.dk | -- Linus Torvalds

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Problems with aspell-en license

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:14:46PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: > The making of usable wordlists is a substantial investment in > verification. The work on the danish dictionary is one of the most > boring tasks I've ever been involved with in relation to open > source. I don't want to know how many man month we have spend and how > many we have to spend before we're comparable to the commercial > dictionaries. All right, fine. File a grave bug against all wordlist packages in Debian and insist upon their removal from the archive until it can be established that they don't violate EU law. If need be, I can host the removed packages from my public_html directory on people.debian.org, which is a U.S. host. Of course, only Debian users from the U.S., Canada, and other countries that respect the principle of _Feist_ can use them. -- G. Branden Robinson | I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to branden@xxxxxxxxxx | have that comment in there. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius pgpClQBPbKBiK.pgp Description: PGP signature

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package?

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Firstly, Debian cannot possibly guarantee that none of the code it > distributes infringes on any patent in any country. So users in any > case cannot "make a good-faith assumption" that they are free to use > the code in their country. In which case, why throw out code that > definitely is patented in the US? Why not just add a comment warning > about the problem? http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html : "Willful infringement of a patent exposes you to major damages. Ordinarily, when someone is found liable for patent infringement, they are prohibited from continuing the infringing activity, and they are ordered to pay the patent holder damages equal to a reasonable royalty for the use of the patent, or the patentee's lost profits. The law permits judges to increase the monetary damages by up to three times, however, if there is a finding of willful infringement, meaning that the infringer had knowledge of the patent before engaging in the actions which constitute infringement." Something to think about, at least. -- Glenn Maynard

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: LZW patented file left in .orig.tar source package?

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in > > "main" that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort > > to ensure that everyting in main is DFSG-free, our users cannot make a > > good-faith assumption that they can exercise certain freedoms with the > > software on their Debian systems without reading every word of every > > copyright license. > > Does a patent make code non-DFSG-free? > > Perhaps Debian says "yes", but I don't quite understand the logic. You're jumping to conclusions. The answer is "not necessarily". The license on the patented technology is such that the DFSG is violated, then yet. Otherwise, no. The DFSG doesn't care what specific part of the law is used to violate users' freedoms; it just cares whether those freedoms are violated or not. -- G. Branden Robinson | I had thought very carefully about Debian GNU/Linux | comitting hara-kiri over this, but branden@xxxxxxxxxx | I overslept this morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi pgpWzw3owKABW.pgp Description: PGP signature

Loading Comments...