Hi debian-legal,
Can someone say whether I may leave a file that implements a patented
algorithm (LZW compression for GIFs) in the source tarball for
OpenOffice.org? The file is not built or distributed - I have patched the
build to use a dummy version of the class that does nothing [1].
Scripsit Conny Brunnkvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Conny wants to create an enhanced distribution based on Debian]
So my questions are, is it legal to do this?
I cannot see anything in what you describe that has any reason not to
be allowed. At least as long as you stick to `main', all the
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 08:30, Henning Makholm wrote:
I somehow seem to have received this on debian-legal though the list
is not in the To or Cc lines. Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] forward to
debian-legal, or was it just Bcc'ed to -legal?
dunno, i replied to this message myself a day or two
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:30:40PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Conny Brunnkvist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I somehow seem to have received this on debian-legal though the
Chris Halls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi debian-legal,
Can someone say whether I may leave a file that implements a patented
algorithm (LZW compression for GIFs) in the source tarball for
OpenOffice.org? The file is not built or distributed - I have patched the
build to use a dummy version
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the .orig.tar.gz file, so it can't be in that. Even if
the .diff.gz takes it out.
Hmm, but why? You're explicitly allowed to describe how a patented
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
Chris Halls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone say whether I may leave a file that implements a patented
algorithm (LZW compression for GIFs) in the source tarball for
OpenOffice.org? The file is not built or distributed - I
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the .orig.tar.gz file, so it can't be in that. Even if
the .diff.gz takes it out.
Hmm, but why? You're
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 08:30, Henning Makholm wrote:
I somehow seem to have received this on debian-legal though the list
is not in the To or Cc lines. Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] forward to
debian-legal, or was it just Bcc'ed to -legal?
dunno, i replied to this message myself a day or two
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 13:08, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the .orig.tar.gz file, so it can't be in that. Even if
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:30:25PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
That doesn't sound right to me. (Though, really, what do I know? All
standard disclaimers apply.)
I was under the impression that patents are use licenses, and are as
such tied to the use you make of the objects covered by them.
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:30, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 13:08, Walter Landry wrote:
Richard Braakman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
You have to take it out of whatever Debian distributes. I can
download the the
[I should point out that, though I am a Progeny employee, this is not an
official statement from Progeny. I am speaking merely as a Debian
developer, and not one vested with any official capacity beyond the
normal privileges associated with membership in the project.]
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at
I know nothing about patent law, US or otherwise, but I keep seeing
programs that are made freely available as source code, but not as
binaries, because they implement patented algorithms. In most cases
the intention is obviously that people will download the source,
compile it and use it. If that
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 09:29:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
The U.S. Supreme Court can put a doctrine to rest within the USA. In
some other parts of the world (notably all E.U. member states),
something that looks very much like sweat of the brow is an official
part of the Law.
Do you
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:40:19AM +0200, Chris Halls wrote:
Can someone say whether I may leave a file that implements a patented
algorithm (LZW compression for GIFs) in the source tarball for
OpenOffice.org? The file is not built or distributed
Well, if it's in the .orig.tar.gz, of course
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
own country. Members of the Debian and Aspell projects from outside the
U.S. who know something of their countries' laws should speak up and
share their knowledge.
Read the thread about licensing issues with aspell-nl from August.
Somewhere around:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:35, Branden Robinson wrote:
An intellectual decision is not necessarily an act of originality.
You're making a sweat-of-the-brow argument. That doesn't hold water
in the U.S. I'd appreciate cites of statues in countries where it does,
or English-language discussions
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:58, David Turner wrote:
35 USC 271 says:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports into the United States any patented
invention during
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 05:35:36PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
noninfringing use
It also says constituting a material part of the invention. Presumably
material means significant here?
I'd say that source code is much more
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:03:44AM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
Fortunately this particular problem will go away next summer :)
(LZW patent expiration)
I'm certainly glad Disney doesn't have as heavy a stake in patents as it
does in copyrights ...
--
Glenn Maynard
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 18:35, Jeff Licquia wrote:
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 15:58, David Turner wrote:
35 USC 271 says:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 16:33, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
I know nothing about patent law, US or otherwise, but I keep seeing
programs that are made freely available as source code, but not as
binaries, because they implement patented algorithms.
I believe that this, like the warez scene
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
I'll seed it with public
domain sources and add words to it on the premise that any word other
than a proper noun or proper adjective is uncopyrightable on its face.
Proper nouns and adjectives from public domain works for which no
trademark is in
24 matches
Mail list logo
