On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:54:22PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 07 October 2008 16:44, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > - packages in 'patented' must fulfill the requirements of the dfsg > > I dont think we should support the obsolete, useless & wrong patent system by > doing this.
If we're going to ignore patent-based liabilities altogether, then let us be vocal about it and issue an official statement (read: GR-backed) with our position. As long as we don't, if we include a certain package that is widely believed to be patent-encumbered, we're sending a message claiming that it is not. I don't appreciate the Moonlight folks trying to use Debian for this purpose. Whatever the choice is, let us at least be consistent... -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]