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].
Thanks,
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 v
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
al
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 distrib
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?
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.
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 t
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
> > > > do
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 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
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 du
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 muc
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
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 24-h
On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:34, David Turner wrote:
> I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense
> meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above:
> Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No. 98-CV-485C(F), 2001.
>
> I've uploaded it to http://novalis.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:36:12PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I don't mean to say that removing the LZW code is a bad idea; I think
> it's the safest route. But I am very nervous about the implication that
> uncompiled source code, by itself, can infringe on a patent. It seems
> to imply that I
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in
> "main" that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort
> to ensure that everyting in main is DFSG-free, our users cannot make a
> good-faith assumption that they can
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Firstly, Debian cannot possibly guarantee that none of the code it
> distributes infringes on any patent in any country. So users in any
> case cannot "make a good-faith assumption" that they are free to use
> the code in their
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Does a patent make code non-DFSG-free?
>
> Perhaps Debian says "yes", but I don't quite understand the logic.
I think in general "no", but Debian long ago moved all gif-writing
programs to non-free. IIRC that was a deliberat
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:10:32AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Debian should not be shipping -- in source or binary form -- anything in
> > "main" that isn't DFSG-free, because unless we make a good-faith effort
> > to ensure that everyting in m
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 19:34, David Turner wrote:
> > I found a case which says that blueprints are components in the sense
> > meant by (c) (well, actually (f), but it's the same language) above:
> > Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register, No. 98-C
David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
> source code and saying, "don't use this" gets around patent law is
> fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one is using that part of the
code distributed by Debian.
> The
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 17:17, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing
> > source code and saying, "don't use this" gets around patent law is
> > fairly silly.
>
> Not really. Particularly if in f
On Fri, 2002-10-25 at 15:33, David Turner wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 00:36, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > While the decision found that blueprints could consititute part of "a
> > substantial portion of the components", it was clear that paper and glue
> > were also needed. It's not clear to me that
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 12:32:33PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The DFSG doesn't care what specific part of the law is used to violate
> users' freedoms; it just cares whether those freedoms are violated or
> not.
I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software
being d
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:09:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software
> being distributed; software that may be illegal to use or distribute for
> reasons *other than the license of the copyright holder* has been
> regarded as DFSG
Hello,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 08:15:20PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > Speaking as the "upstream" - it would also be definately much better if
> > everyone used just the same one tarball and there wasn't a "normal source
> > t
Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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. You can
> make a car engine that infringes on a particular patent, for example,
> without a license; you just can't put i
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 18:44, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
> You're incorrect.
So I've learned, to my chagrin. But thanks for the clue.
At Sat, 26 Oct 2002 20:13:21 -0500,
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 10:09:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I disagree. The DFSG speaks explicitly of the licenses of the software
> > being distributed; software that may be illegal to use or distribute for
> > reasons *other t
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 10:11:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> What do you think about "a patent suddenly forces the charge of use
> retoroactively"?
I'm not sure such a patent license would be legal, unless the original
patent license allowed for such a possible future retroactive change.
Any
Speaking as the "upstream" - it would also be definately much better if
everyone used just the same one tarball and there wasn't a "normal source
tarball" and "source tarball sans 'K' files".
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:58:50AM -0700, Walter Landry wro
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> Speaking as the "upstream" - it would also be definately much better if
> everyone used just the same one tarball and there wasn't a "normal source
> tarball" and "source tarball sans 'K' files".
Speaking as a free software developer
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > Speaking as the "upstream" - it would also be definately much better if
> > everyone used just the same one tarball and there wasn't a "normal source
> > tarball" and "source tarball sa
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 08:20:56PM +, Sander Vesik wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > > Speaking as the "upstream" - it would also be definately much better if
> > > everyone used just the same one tarball
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 07:15:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> All Debian is trying to do is the same thing. Debian not want to be
> subjected to patent infringment claims from Unisys. Eliminating
> implementations of the LZW algorithm from source code that we
> distributing is one way -- p
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:54AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I thought that in the US at least, source code had been held to be speech
> (due to the necessity for precise communication of the ideas expressed
> therein) during one of the crypto cases.
> There's nothing about patent law that enab
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:54AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > I thought that in the US at least, source code had been held to be speech
> > (due to the necessity for precise communication of the ideas expressed
> > therein) during one of the crypto ca
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 01:06:54AM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I thought that in the US at least, source code had been held to be speech
> (due to the necessity for precise communication of the ideas expressed
> therein) during one of the crypto cases.
That's in one Federal Circuit, the 9th, whi
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please do not put us in the position of feeling that we are creating
> points of contention with upstream authors when we do so. If this
> happens, we may decide it's better to not distribute the software at
> all. But that, too, may be interpreted
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 07:48:51PM +, Sander Vesik wrote:
> For some odd reason I keep hearing text along the lines of "blah blah, or
> we might decide tonot ship OOo at all" coming from Debian every now and
> then and frankly, i'm pretty sick and tired of it.
I'm sorry you regard Debian's con
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:59:44AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> That's in one Federal Circuit, the 9th, which is also the most overruled
[snip]
Thanks for the explanations.
--
Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Time to be aggressive. Go after a tattooed Virgo.
43 matches
Mail list logo
