On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 06:51:37PM +, Marco Franzen wrote:
G. Branden Robinson| Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux | Biology is really chemistry.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Chemistry is really physics.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:29:37PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Feb 19, 2004, at 04:09, Roland Stigge wrote:
We don't know if the patent holder enforces the named patents next
week.
No, we don't. But we do know that in the past, Unisys has been very
active in enforcing its LZW
On Feb 19, 2004, at 04:09, Roland Stigge wrote:
We don't know if the patent holder enforces the named patents next
week.
No, we don't. But we do know that in the past, Unisys has been very
active in enforcing its LZW (GIF) patent. We assume that a patent
holder who has previously litigated
Hi,
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I wonder if it is still possible for sarge to be released before 7
July 2004 (international expiration of US4558302). If not, we could
start to move GIF/LZW patent encumbered packages from non-free and
contrib to main.
They will most likely not be moved
* Roland Stigge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040219 10:10]:
Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I wonder if it is still possible for sarge to be released before 7
July 2004 (international expiration of US4558302). If not, we could
start to move GIF/LZW patent encumbered packages from non-free and
Hi,
I wonder if it is still possible for sarge to be released before 7 July
2004 (international expiration of US4558302). If not, we could start to
move GIF/LZW patent encumbered packages from non-free and contrib to
main.
More generally, I hope I'm not the only one aware of the fact that
* Roland Stigge ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040218 18:40]:
I wonder if it is still possible for sarge to be released before 7 July
2004 (international expiration of US4558302). If not, we could start to
move GIF/LZW patent encumbered packages from non-free and contrib to
main.
I think this is a good
On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 05:22:29PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
I wonder if it is still possible for sarge to be released before 7 July
2004 (international expiration of US4558302). If not, we could start to
move GIF/LZW patent encumbered packages from non-free and contrib to
main.
They will
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:20:58PM +0100, Alex de Landgraaf wrote:
Hey debian-legal,
Interested in improving font-AAing in Debian, I've taken a look at some of the
patches in Debian for the freetype package. Now patents have hinderd true AA
using freetype in Debian in the past ( 2 years
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debian is not patent-free, and will not be patent-free. CAST5 and
CAST6 are patented but are available for use royalty free. DSA is
patented by, IIRC, David Kravitz of the NSA. Putting a cursor on the
screen using XOR is patented.
The XOR cursor
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 20:41, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If Apple decides to actively enforce its patent, you should upgrade
the severity to serious if the license available for general use is
not compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 08:08:03AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
patch (030-bytecode-interpreter.diff), I suspect this patch still remains
from
the 1.0 freetype series, when this and other patches were used to supply an
unpatented bytecode interpreter. According to the freetype site,
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 23:12, Anthony Fok wrote:
I just did some experiments, and it seems that the prettier version
(http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with
FreeType's autohinting on. In that case, I suggest modifying
/etc/fonts/local.conf and uncomment the
Le sam 24/01/2004 à 00:12, Anthony Fok a écrit :
I just did some experiments, and it seems that the prettier version
(http://descent.netsplit.com/~scott/fonts-upstream.png) was rendered with
FreeType's autohinting on.
Yes, enabling the autohinter disables the bytecode interpreter as the
two
Hey debian-legal,
Interested in improving font-AAing in Debian, I've taken a look at some of the
patches in Debian for the freetype package. Now patents have hinderd true AA
using freetype in Debian in the past ( 2 years ago), but since the freetype
2.0 series this shouldn't be a problem anymore
From: Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I could support this proposal if it simply pops up a screen that says
These corporations claim to hold patents on [part of] this package's
functionality. [list of patent numbers, countries, expiration dates,
short descriptions, links to more
begin Barak Pearlmutter quotation of Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:17:12AM -0600:
Fortunately we're not actually talking about a *contract* here, just a
warning. Be aware, some people claim that there might be a patent
issue in some uses of this software (patents US7549857398573498,
I think chose my terminology poorly. When I wrote click through
license I was using the word license sarcastically. Hence the
scare quotes.
From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... The fact that proprietary software vendors engage in those acts
is not an argument in favor of Debian doing
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 02:28:32AM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
The idea itself actually click-though notification. The click
through was meant to imply that we could count on this being a valid
information distribution mechanism just as much as many software
vendors count on their click
Barak Pearlmutter said:
I think chose my terminology poorly. When I wrote click through
license I was using the word license sarcastically. Hence the
scare quotes.
From: Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
... The fact that proprietary software vendors engage in those acts
is not an argument
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
Barak, I agree with your purpose, and completely disagree with your
approach.
Beyond some problems with practical matters (I think patent law varies
way too widely to provide accurate information without undue burden on
the maintainers), it has two
On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
thus does not stay true to our ideals.
It can be worded that Debian disagrees strongly with the idea of patented
On 19-May-01, 20:15 (CDT), Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vendors of proprietary software use click-through licenses all the
time.
Vendors of proprietary software ship binary only software all the time.
Vendors of proprietary software forbid reverse engineering all the time.
On Sun, 20 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
On 19-May-01, 23:03 (CDT), John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Steve Greenland wrote:
2a. It basically confirms that we think these patents are valid[1], and
thus does not stay true to our ideals.
It can be worded that Debian
We have a conflict: staying true to our ideals, which hold that
software patents are a travesty, and preventing nasty lawyers from
suing Debian for contributory patent infringement. To shield Debian
from legal liability, we do not include patented algorithms in the
main archive.
This means that
Scripsit Barak Pearlmutter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There must be something wrong with your email software. Your message
hit debian-legal more than a month past April 1.
As an added legal protection, another question could follow this one,
in which the user is informed that lying on the previoius
Barak, I agree with your purpose, and completely disagree with your
approach.
Beyond some problems with practical matters (I think patent law varies
way too widely to provide accurate information without undue burden on
the maintainers), it has two fundamental flaws:
1. It puts a burden on our
Hey, hang on! If there's something wrong with the idea (eg, you think
it wouldn't really shield Debian from liability) please explain in
more detail.
Vendors of proprietary software use click-through licenses all the
time. In part, these agreements are used to shield the vendors from
legal
28 matches
Mail list logo
