nicolas vigier a écrit :
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Wolfgang Bornath wrote:
2010/12/10 Romain d'Alverny<rdalve...@gmail.com>:
Ok, but you still take into account SP in your answer. :-p (we would
have come to that, but the idea was to think about it from a naïve,
software-patent-free perspective).
If there were no software patents anywhere what would be the issue of
this discussion?
IMHO it makes no sense to discuss something which does not exist
If Mageia were a project fro French users only we would no have this
discussion. But as it is a worldwide project the probelm exists and
pretending it does not makes no sense, not even from a theoretical
POV. because the theoretical POV is "No SP, no discussion".
Ok, anyway.
I see the strategy in your proposition but:
1. We know from the start that there ARE packages with software which
is patented in some countries. So, the "let's start empty and see what
comes up" is already done with.
Being patented does not mean that patent is valid and enforceable.
We should remember that patents are a civil right accorded by rules
differing from country to country. Many countries don't offer patents
on software.
Patent holders have to use the courts to enforce these rights, who often
deny or limit patent holder's claims.
So in addition to any theoretical rights of software patent holders,
there is the consideration "is it worth the money and effort for the
potential gain in royalties" ?
In that, free software (in both senses) has a considerable advantage
compared to other parties who could be considered in infringement of
software patents.
2. In some countries mirror maintainers can not wait until somebody
raises his hand, there are lawyers who write nice "cease and desist"
letters, attached is a bill you have to pay. In Germany this is called
"Kostenpflichtige Abmahnung" and has grown to a habit of some
lawyers.
Meaning: you can't wait and see what happens, you have to make sure
that it does not happen from the start.
"cease and desist" letters are just warnings. Any attached "bill" would
only have effect if validatated by a court.
As I understand, lawyers have the same habit in the U.S.
Wouldn't the amounts accorded be based on the supposed benefit that the
supposed violator has received ? (At least that is part of the equation
in the U.S.)
And how does that translate for free software ?
In the U.S., software patent holders have avoided attacking targets
without a lot of financial resources.
The only Linux-associated target I recall is Novell.
Mpeg patents are pursued, but the several PLF mirrors in the U.S., with
openly indicated patented packages, are ignored.
I mean, opinions about software patents set aside for a minute,
software patents are protected by official law in those countries. You
can not break the law on the basis of "let's see what happens".
Again, this is not "breaking the law", but potentially infringing on a
civil right. Which must be validated by the courts.
The problem is that we don't know for sure if we violate the law. We
should not be too paranoid about this. Microsoft claims that the Linux
kernel violates 235 of their patents :
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm
Should we trust them and remove the kernel from the core repository ?
Yes indeed. Off to "tainted" we go :) :) :)
I'm wondering how much mirror admins are concerned about patent issues.
In the U.S., not much, and with reason. Not even the PLF mirror sites
there are pursued.
Which is convenient for us in Canada : often the closest mirror is
across the border.
If we split the packages between core and "tainted" repositories, how
many will filter it ?
We all know that packagers don't have enough work. Don't we ? ;)
If only a few will do it, maybe it's not really
worth it and we can still have enough mirrors. It seems that Debian has
mirrors in many countries, while hosting patented software in its main
repository.
Including the U.S.
Interesting that Debian discussions about patent issues seem to focus on
what will be accepted in U.S. mirrors. Who have yet to be impacted on
patent issues.
It seems that the few spectactular cases against rich players in the
U.S. has distorted the perception of the legal reality there.
- André
