Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
Le Vendredi 12 Août 2005 07:21, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > > > Le Samedi 6 Août 2005 06:40, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > Hi Florent, > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:28:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > > > > > Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to > > > > > > > decide if he will fix the bug or not. > > > > > > > > > > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however > > > > > > -- either it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > > > > > > > > > Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below). > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such > > > > > > > problem is treated. > > > > > > > > > > > > That bug shows people expressing the opinions that > > > > > > > > > > > > - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent > > > > > > before we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced > > > > > > against us - we consider the existence of prior art as sufficient > > > > > > reason to ignore the patent, since legally, the patent is invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how > > > > > > either relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > > > > > > > > > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that > > > > > there is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from > > > > > previous discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : > > > > > "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as > > > > > long as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not > > > > > been challanged." > > > > > > > > > It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let > > > > > this software in Debian, even if the patent has not been > > > > > challenged ?). > > > > > > > Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm > > > > personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the > > > > purview of the ftp team to decide. > > > > > > Is this bug still being held open for some reason? There don't seem to > > > be > > > > What did the ftp team decide ? > > I'm not aware that they decided anything. Did you ask them? Could you please decide to keep or remove this package from Debian ? Thanks. -- Florent pgpitwzXDESAn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > Le Samedi 6 Août 2005 06:40, Steve Langasek a écrit : > [...] > > > Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm > > > personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the > > > purview of the ftp team to decide. > > Is this bug still being held open for some reason? There don't seem to be > What did the ftp team decide ? I'm not aware that they decided anything. Did you ask them? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
Le Samedi 6 Août 2005 06:40, Steve Langasek a écrit : > Hi Florent, Hi Steve, [...] > > Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm > > personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the > > purview of the ftp team to decide. > > Is this bug still being held open for some reason? There don't seem to be What did the ftp team decide ? If they choose to keep the package because of prior art, I will close the bug. > any packages depending on libpano12, so I think it would be fine to remove > the package from testing anyway if further investigation is needed. Some will come (see #246244 and #294389). -- Florent pgpQrxMydP5ql.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
Hi Florent, On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 06:28:54AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > > Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > [...] > > > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he > > > > will fix the bug or not. > > > > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- > > > either > > > it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > > > Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below). > > > [...] > > > > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is > > > > treated. > > > > > > That bug shows people expressing the opinions that > > > > > > - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent before > > > we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced against us - we > > > consider the existence of prior art as sufficient reason to ignore the > > > patent, since legally, the patent is invalid > > > > > > both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how either > > > relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > > > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there is > > clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous > > discution > > on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : > > "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long > > as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been > > challanged." > > > It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let this > > software in Debian, even if the patent has not been challenged ?). > Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm > personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the purview > of the ftp team to decide. Is this bug still being held open for some reason? There don't seem to be any packages depending on libpano12, so I think it would be fine to remove the package from testing anyway if further investigation is needed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:22AM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit : > [...] > > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he > > > will fix the bug or not. > > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- either > > it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below). > [...] > > > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is > > > treated. > > > > That bug shows people expressing the opinions that > > > > - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent before > > we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced against us - we > > consider the existence of prior art as sufficient reason to ignore the > > patent, since legally, the patent is invalid > > > > both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how either > > relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there is > clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous discution > on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : > "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long > as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been > challanged." > It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let this > software in Debian, even if the patent has not been challenged ?). Well, if the prior art exists which shows the patent is invalid, I'm personally satisfied that we can ship it, but this is actually the purview of the ftp team to decide. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
On Wednesday 22 June 2005 03.25, Florent Bayle wrote: [libpano12] > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there > is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous > discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : > "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long > as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been > challanged." Wouldn't this be a case where pubpat could be asked to review the patent and try to challenge it? Debian is, after all, quite well-known, and if this patent really - has prior art and thus should be available, and - is enforced aggressively enough that some developers have been scared away, I think pubpat might be interested. (The two items above were hinted at in this discussion - I'm not familiar with the case, just jumping in.) cheers -- vbi -- Compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source. pgppM9HW7I8ca.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
The senior patent holder is presumably now Ford Oxaal, who discusses his licensing policy, his relationship to iPIX, and the status of Helmut Dersch's "PT toolset" at http://www.pictosphere.com/kwx/faq.html . I have made no attempt to evaluate the strength of his patents in light of the prior art, nor whether his patents are the only ones that might be enforced against the PT tools; but there is at least some indication that Oxaal has estopped himself against enforcing his patents against non-commercial use of whatever software components are part of "PT-Viewer". If his patents have any traction against libpano12, then it presumably cannot go into main, but may be suitable for non-free. Cheers, - Michael (IANADD, IANAL, TINLA)
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
Le Mercredi 22 Juin 2005 02:38, Steve Langasek a écrit : [...] > > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he > > will fix the bug or not. > > The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- either > it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > Yes, but I think that this bug should not be RC (see below). [...] > > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is > > treated. > > That bug shows people expressing the opinions that > > - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent before > we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced against us - we > consider the existence of prior art as sufficient reason to ignore the > patent, since legally, the patent is invalid > > both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how either > relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/patents.html suggests that there is clear prior art in this case. I have taken this link from previous discution on debian-legal. But Robert Jordens thinks that : "The prior art argument is pretty much irrelevant in our question as long as the legal status quo is different and the patent has not been challanged." It's why I want to know what I have to do in this case (can we let this software in Debian, even if the patent has not been challenged ?). [...] > > (please have a look at the latest > > debate on debian-legal, > > Reference, please? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/05/msg00274.html [...] > > We can't know what will be the risk for Debian. Please take into account > > the fact that there is a sourceforge project and that developers haven't > > got any problems. > > Debian has consistently classified actively-enforced patents as an > unacceptable risk. Is there some reason to think this patent is not really > being actively enforced, or is an invalid patent? - it seems that there is prior art - the sourceforge project exists since 30/11/2003 and the developers haven't got any problems -- Florent Bayle pgpNgteRnT4Xu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:03:48PM +0200, Florent Bayle wrote: > Le Mardi 21 Juin 2005 18:10, Robert Jordens a écrit : > > severity 309257 grave > > tags 309257 - wontfix > > tags 309257 + sid etch > > thanks > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he will > fix the bug or not. The "wontfix" tag isn't really appropriate for an RC bug, however -- either it gets fixed, or the package gets removed. > > * Florent Bayle: > > > severity 309257 important > > > tags 309257 wontfix > > > stop > > > This bug should not prevent libpano12 from going into testing. > > Patent problems are not something that you can refuse to fix! And how do > > you come to the comclusion that they should not prevent libpano12 from > > reaching testing? > Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is treated. That bug shows people expressing the opinions that - we don't want to be hasty in removing software based on a patent before we have reason to believe it's valid and may be enforced against us - we consider the existence of prior art as sufficient reason to ignore the patent, since legally, the patent is invalid both of these things are true, but you haven't really shown how either relates to libpano12, AFAICT? > > I'd like to request removal of libpano12 from Debian in the current form > > for the reasons outlined in the bug report and the ITP for panotools. > You are the only one who think that this problem is so important that we have > to remove this package from Debian (please have a look at the latest debate > on debian-legal, Reference, please? > > * Josselin Mouette: > > > So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a > > > jackass claims he has some prior art? > > That argument would hold for the MP3 encoders as well. A "realistic > > threat" makes "patent problems" something dangerous. > > > Come on, please resurrect the non-us archive. There are many pieces of > > > software we could distribute in it without risking patent lawsuits. > > The lawsuit WRT panotools has threatened the _German_ developer (that > > hardly ever left Germany) to the point where he abandoned the software. > > This wouldn't fit for your new non-us archive. > We can't know what will be the risk for Debian. Please take into account the > fact that there is a sourceforge project and that developers haven't got any > problems. Debian has consistently classified actively-enforced patents as an unacceptable risk. Is there some reason to think this patent is not really being actively enforced, or is an invalid patent? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
Le Mardi 21 Juin 2005 18:10, Robert Jordens a écrit : > severity 309257 grave > tags 309257 - wontfix > tags 309257 + sid etch > thanks > You should not remove wontfix tag, it's maintainer role to decide if he will fix the bug or not. > > Hey! > > * Florent Bayle: > > severity 309257 important > > tags 309257 wontfix > > stop > > > > This bug should not prevent libpano12 from going into testing. > > Patent problems are not something that you can refuse to fix! And how do > you come to the comclusion that they should not prevent libpano12 from > reaching testing? Please have a look at libjpeg62 (#153467) to see how such problem is treated. > I'd like to request removal of libpano12 from Debian in the current form > for the reasons outlined in the bug report and the ITP for panotools. You are the only one who think that this problem is so important that we have to remove this package from Debian (please have a look at the latest debate on debian-legal, and why haven't you CCed your message to debian-legal before taking this decision). What will be Debian if we remove all the softwares that violate a patent somewhere ? > > * Josselin Mouette: > > So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a > > jackass claims he has some prior art? > > That argument would hold for the MP3 encoders as well. A "realistic > threat" makes "patent problems" something dangerous. > > > Come on, please resurrect the non-us archive. There are many pieces of > > software we could distribute in it without risking patent lawsuits. > > The lawsuit WRT panotools has threatened the _German_ developer (that > hardly ever left Germany) to the point where he abandoned the software. > This wouldn't fit for your new non-us archive. We can't know what will be the risk for Debian. Please take into account the fact that there is a sourceforge project and that developers haven't got any problems. -- Florent Bayle - libpano12 maintainer pgpOBRu9zWLP8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#309257: Bug #309257: libpano12: patent problems
severity 309257 grave tags 309257 - wontfix tags 309257 + sid etch thanks Hey! * Florent Bayle: > severity 309257 important > tags 309257 wontfix > stop > This bug should not prevent libpano12 from going into testing. Patent problems are not something that you can refuse to fix! And how do you come to the comclusion that they should not prevent libpano12 from reaching testing? I'd like to request removal of libpano12 from Debian in the current form for the reasons outlined in the bug report and the ITP for panotools. * Josselin Mouette: > So what? Are we going to remove any piece of software for which a > jackass claims he has some prior art? That argument would hold for the MP3 encoders as well. A "realistic threat" makes "patent problems" something dangerous. > Come on, please resurrect the non-us archive. There are many pieces of > software we could distribute in it without risking patent lawsuits. The lawsuit WRT panotools has threatened the _German_ developer (that hardly ever left Germany) to the point where he abandoned the software. This wouldn't fit for your new non-us archive. Robert. -- In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
