Quoting Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Stephen Birch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> On 4 Jul 2005, at 11:44 am, Wookey wrote: >>> Take a look at this patent (granted this week in europe) >>> >>> http://gauss.ffii.org/PatentView/EP1170667 >>> >>> I'm fairly sure that apt-get and associated package-integratity >>> checking tools could be considered infringing. (Does dpkg/apt have >>> a modular structure?) >> >> It seems that when RMS cried "the sky is falling" [this time regarding >> patents] he was, once again, absolutely correct. Software patents are >> the single biggest threat not only to the open source movement but >> also to small/medium sized software companies. > > Note that this particular patent is: > EP Status: Granted. Within 9 month opposition window > > So if you have *proof of prior art* you can oppose the patent grant > > In practical terms, this means someone who can "prove" that the Debian > Packaging system does this. Which probably means an Official > Debian Person sending the letter, with dates of when the technology was > introduced into Debian, and perhaps extracts from the Packaging Manuals > of the period to show this.
YEARS (!) ago I wrote the script that did the pre-upgrades to 'bo' (I _think_ it was to 'bo' any way :). It basically only ftp'd (or was it wget?) required packages from the Debian GNU/Linux FTP site(s), installed them and then allowed the user/admin to continue with the upgrade... Now, that seems like 'prior art' to me (even to apt-get :). -- nitrate quiche Kennedy NSA Honduras Uzi kibo smuggle NORAD munitions ammunition cryptographic Marxist cracking KGB [See http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/index.html for more about this] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]