Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-22 Thread Dariush Pietrzak 
> > >  I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> > > may/may not be possibly infriging on.
> > What package? By whom?
 Packages are those that I'm going to upload into debian - mplayer and
pound. I just thought that it's generic issue - i didn't know that I'm
supposed to check patents for my packages and that's why i'm asking for
clarification.

> Who is asking for this?  It's not a reasonable request; in fact, it's
 Well, I've been asked by Front Desk.
Since mplayer's copyright issues have been resolved, and the only left
issue is that someone mentioned 'possible patent problems', I've been asked
to get an 'OK' on patents from debian-legal before we can procede.

> one that's likely to expose you to greater liability.
 That's what I thought.

-- 
Dariush Pietrzak,
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294  05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Glenn Maynard 
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
> > from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?
>  I wrote it before I read them, sorry.
> Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail.

You already have.  You havn't responded to an important question by Adam
Warner:

> >  I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> > may/may not be possibly infriging on.
>
> What package? By whom?

Who is asking for this?  It's not a reasonable request; in fact, it's
one that's likely to expose you to greater liability.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Branden Robinson 
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:03:10PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:16:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Huh?  What?  XOR cursor?  What's that?
> 
> I haven't read the patent (legalese gives me headaches), but I know that
> "XOR" is an abbreviation for "eXclusive Overwrite Rights", a variant
> of DRM.  It enforces an author's moral rights by not allowing non-approved
> cursor shapes to be used to point at protected intellectual property.
> When a user moves a cursor over a window containing protected content,
> the display manager sends the cursor shape to microsoft^W the content
> vendor's representative for inspection, and disallows the motion until
> it receives approval.  This way, serious documentaries are protected
> from being seen with banana-shaped cursors hovering over them, and similar
> abuses of the content provider's reputation and artistic integrity.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, the X server still lacks this important
> functionality.

Ah, yes, thanks for explaining this.  I concur, the X server does indeed
lack this functionality.

Glad to see there's no problem here.

/me clears throat loudly and glares at the audience

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   | Music is the brandy of the damned.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- George Bernard Shaw
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpt7v0va1cHp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Branden Robinson 
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:27:27AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
> > from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?
>  I wrote it before I read them, sorry.
> Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail.

People who say "anyhoo" aren't welcome on this mailing list.



-- 
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux   |   If existence exists,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   why create a creator?
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpzRHOZxzveE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Richard Braakman 
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:16:19AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
> > to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)
> 
> Huh?  What?  XOR cursor?  What's that?

I haven't read the patent (legalese gives me headaches), but I know that
"XOR" is an abbreviation for "eXclusive Overwrite Rights", a variant
of DRM.  It enforces an author's moral rights by not allowing non-approved
cursor shapes to be used to point at protected intellectual property.
When a user moves a cursor over a window containing protected content,
the display manager sends the cursor shape to microsoft^W the content
vendor's representative for inspection, and disallows the motion until
it receives approval.  This way, serious documentaries are protected
from being seen with banana-shaped cursors hovering over them, and similar
abuses of the content provider's reputation and artistic integrity.

To the best of my knowledge, the X server still lacks this important
functionality.

> Hint: do not reply to this message.  :-P

Huh?  What?

-- 
Richard Braakman
  to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction
  between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Dariush Pietrzak 
> What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
> from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?
 I wrote it before I read them, sorry.
Anyhoo, I'm still trying to get a reply to my original mail.

-- 
Dariush Pietrzak,
She swore and she cursed, that she never would deceive me
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294  05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Branden Robinson 
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:56:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> > > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > > respect?
> > 
> > We do not ignore any patent.
> 
> Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
> to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)

Huh?  What?  XOR cursor?  What's that?

Hint: do not reply to this message.  :-P

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when
Debian GNU/Linux   |you pry it from my cold, dead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton


pgpplO4URfdoX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis 
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:39:22AM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
>  And I should cross-reference every line in the source against every
> existing patent. 
[...]

What are you trying to do with this mail? haven't you seen the replies
from other developers pointing out my errors and misunderstandings?

...
-- 
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis  | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''.   | something in common: they
local LANG="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" | don't depend on the 
language.

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-20 Thread Dariush Pietrzak 
> That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
> is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or

> copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
 And I should cross-reference every line in the source against every
existing patent. 
 Where can I find a list of such patents? Have you got some method of
checking which patents are relevant?  
 For example, there exist a patent for 'accessing computers remotely', I
can't possibly find relevance by looking at every file in the source, but
by looking at bigger picture it's obvious that i am violating such patent
by using ssh or telnet or rssh ( and also by using infrared keyboard ).
 This means that I have to understand every existing patent quite
intimately, and also it means that I have to understand every single
algorithm used in my package. 
I won't be able to do that in my lifetime.
How did you go about locating patents relevant to your packages? 
Are there some techniques, automated tools that could make this doable?

> > about locating software patents in every country that uses such patents?
> Uploading to non-us is not a solution. You should contact and work with the
> author.
 Author of patent?

-- 
Dariush Pietrzak,
She swore and she cursed, that she never would deceive me
Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294  05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-19 Thread Rene Engelhard 
Hi,

Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > Hello,
> >  I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> > may/may not be possibly infriging on.
> >  As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities, 
> > so what should one do with this?
> 
> That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
> is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
> copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.
> 
> > Are all package maintainers required to do this?
> 
> We have to (of course we do our best).
> 
> > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > respect?
> 
> We do not ignore any patent.

Ah, OK. So we can stop Debian because we would have to remove all
software because the progess bar is patented by IBM (at least here
in Europe, don't know about US) or the concept of "if" is patented
or the concept on working on another machine (ssh), tabbed UIs (Adobe)
etc.?

Rene


pgpZD0CZDQHiY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-19 Thread Joey Hess 
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > respect?
> 
> We do not ignore any patent.

Who is Branden supposed to send the royalty checks for patent #4,197,590
to again? (That's the XOR cursor patent.)

-- 
see shy jo


pgpIA1RJQkTCt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-19 Thread Henning Makholm 
Scripsit Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
> is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
> copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.

You're misunderstanding something. It is not possible to find of
whether there are any patents relevant to a given piece of software
just by looking at the source. Therein lies (some of) the evil of the
patent system.

> > Are all package maintainers required to do this?

No.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i
 spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ..."

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-19 Thread Steve Langasek 
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:47:33AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> > Hello,
> >  I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> > may/may not be possibly infriging on.
> >  As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities, 
> > so what should one do with this?

> That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
> is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
> copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.

> > Are all package maintainers required to do this?

> We have to (of course we do our best).

> > Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> > respect?

> We do not ignore any patent.

That's not true.  What we don't ignore are cease-and-desist letters
informing us that we are infringing, or clear indications that a patent
is being actively enforced against others in the community.  Software
patents are inherently broken, and we're better off pretending they
don't exist at all in the absence of active enforcement.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpW6718bn5rY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-19 Thread Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis 
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 12:03:56PM +0200, Dariush Pietrzak wrote:
> Hello,
>  I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> may/may not be possibly infriging on.
>  As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities, 
> so what should one do with this?

That's not so beyond: you should be shure that the package you are building
is compliant to our DFSG and that is not violating any patent or
copyright. That mean you should inspect any file in the source.

> Are all package maintainers required to do this?

We have to (of course we do our best).

> Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> respect?

We do not ignore any patent.

>  Would uploading to non-us solve the problem? And if not, how would one go
> about locating software patents in every country that uses such patents?

Uploading to non-us is not a solution. You should contact and work with the
author.

ciao,
-- 
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis  | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''.   | something in common: they
local LANG="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" | don't depend on the 
language.

Re: new-maintainer vs patents.

2003-05-19 Thread Adam Warner 
Hi Dariush Pietrzak,

> Hello,
>  I've been asked to provide the list of patents that my package
> may/may not be possibly infriging on.

What package? By whom?

>  As you can imagine this task is way beyond my capabilities,
> so what should one do with this?
> Are all package maintainers required to do this?

Not that I am aware of [NB: I'm not a Debian developer]

> Is there some policy about which patents do we ignore and which do we
> respect?

The rule of thumb here seems to be to not discuss particular patents
unless there is an unavoidable issue because it might impact upon whether
developers/users/list subscribers are found to be committing willful
patent infringement. Check out this link:[0]
 

   Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
   reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
   willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
   can be gained from reading patents. This state of affairs, of course,
   negates even the theoretical benefit of the patent system, that the
   public at large learns about new technology once it is patented. As it
   stands, the people who should be learning from patents in any given
   field are the same people who stand to lose the most if they dare to
   take a peek.

When people find out the software you intend to package it may be obvious
that there are clear patent issues. But I don't think anyone wants you to
try to locate applicable software patents in every country!

Regards,
Adam

[0] 
http://groups.google.com/groups?q&selm=20030129212006%2476db%40gated-at.bofh.it 
(also read through the thread)