Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Hello, When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4 codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed in order to use it, appearantly. My question is how Debian handles software patents. I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets patented. If that is the case, would any of you know if the MPEG[24] codec patents are actively enforced? In other words, can this be in Debian? Thanks, Bas Wijnen Ps: Please keep me CCd, I'm not on the list. -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
On 8/16/06, Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4 codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed in order to use it, appearantly. My question is how Debian handles software patents. I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets patented. If that is the case, would any of you know if the MPEG[24] codec patents are actively enforced? In other words, can this be in Debian? Some days ago I saw a "Legal Mini-FAQ"[1] for FFmpeg which says, among other things: Q: Since FFmpeg is licensed under the LGPL, is it perfectly all right to incorporate the whole FFmpeg core into my own commercial product? A: You might have a problem here. Sure the LGPL allows you to incorporate the code. However, there have been cases where companies have used FFmpeg in their projects, usually for such capabilities as superior MPEG-4 decoding. These companies found out that once you start trying to make money from certain technologies, the alleged owners of the technologies will come after their dues. Most notably, MPEG-LA (licensing authority) is vigilant and diligent about collecting for MPEG-related technologies. Anyway, ffmpeg[2] is included in Debian [1] http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/legal.html [2] http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/ffmpeg DISCLAIMER: IANAL, IANADD, and I'm not active with Debian, except by reading few mailing lists. -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 11:04:44AM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote: > Hello, > > When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. According to > the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the MPEG2/MPEG4 > codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is needed > in order to use it, appearantly. > > My question is how Debian handles software patents. I thought we didn't care > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets > patented. If that is the case, would any of you know if the MPEG[24] codec > patents are actively enforced? In other words, can this be in Debian? > > Thanks, > Bas Wijnen > > Ps: Please keep me CCd, I'm not on the list. Why not just removing the offending code and leaving avidemux only with support for patent-free codecs like theora? -- Robert Millan My spam trap is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note: this address is only intended for spam harvesters. Writing to it will get you added to my black list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Bas Wijnen wrote: I thought we didn't care > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets > patented. > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 10:44:25PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote: > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > > I thought we didn't care about them except if they were actively enforced, > > because it's completely impossible to avoid all patented software, > > considering the junk that gets patented. > > > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at > all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. Ok, I should be more careful with what I say on debian-legal. :-) What you say is obviously true if the programmer of the software has a patent on that software. However, in this case (and, I suppose, in the case of any other program), there are patents held by third parties. They may or may not actively enforce them. It is likely that distributing the program is a patent violation by the programmer, at least in some countries (such as the US). It is also a violation for us to distribute it in those countries (if the patents are valid, which is doubtful, but some of them may be, and this particular one for mpeg4 probably is, I think). So the license of the software is fine, the problem is that the programmer may be illegally distributing the software to us, and it would be illegal for us to distribute it to anyone else. We can of course claim that we don't know, and assume that the programmer knew what he was doing. This is not unlikely (actually, it's even true for me). This means we only have to stop distributing when the programmer does indeed get sued and loses the case. The question was if that is indeed the way Debian does these things. And in particular, people do get sued for using the mpeg4 codec, IIUC. So does that mean we would at least consider it non-free? Or not distributable at all? Of course IANAL (that's why I'm asking here ;-) ), so in case of any inaccuracies in the above, I'd appreciate corrections. Oh, and about the suggestion to remove the problematic code: That's an option, but I prefer not spending time on removing functionality from programs. Thanks, Bas Wijnen -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Am 2006-08-16 11:04:44, schrieb Bas Wijnen: > Hello, > > When looking for some video-editing software, I found avidemux. > According to > the wnpp bug, there is a problem with license issues regarding the > MPEG2/MPEG4 > codec. There is a software patent on this codec, and a paid license is > needed > in order to use it, appearantly. You can obtaine an individual licence for 5000 US$ from the patent holder. same thing for libcss2. > My question is how Debian handles software patents. I thought we Debian does not handel any software patents, since you can obtaine at any moments a legal individual licence > didn't care > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's > completely > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that > gets > patented. If that is the case, would any of you know if the MPEG[24] > codec > patents are actively enforced? In other words, can this be in Debian? Patents on decoding something can not be enforced. Patents on encoding YES! Please look at the websiote of the patent holder. All informations are availlable public. Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Bug#203211: Software patents and Debian
Am 2006-08-17 22:44:25, schrieb Weakish Jiang: > > > Bas Wijnen wrote: > > I thought we didn't care > > about them except if they were actively enforced, because it's completely > > impossible to avoid all patented software, considering the junk that gets > > patented. > > > Unless the patent is licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at > all, it won't conform to the DFSG, even if it is not actively enforced. Not realy right => JPEG And they are some dozen others which are not actively enforced. If Debian kick off all packages which use patented stuff anywhere then we would have only 50% of the packages in Sid... Greetings Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
