Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Debian was at least consistent.
> > 
> > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues 
> > than RedHat?
> 
> It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
> 
> The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on natural laws,
> on stuff that's already patented, on stuff with clear prior art, on
> trivial math operations and so on.  Patents are being granted so quickly
> there's no way of even knowing what's patented.
> 
> Or were you hoping that Debian would follow Red Hat's lead?


Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered 
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.

Yes, Debian can choose to put a higher risk on their distributors and 
mirrors - there's nothing wrong with this.


Note that this is a respose to Josselin's statement:

<--  snip  -->

When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a court.

<--  snip  -->


It's simply silly to be extremely picky on copyright issues while being 
extremely liberal on patent issues - the risk of a Debian distributor 
being sued for patent violations (no matter how the lawsuit might end) 
is definitely present.


> As for this particular patent, I'm not really sure what's being patented.
>...


Which one of the 23 patents they list do you call "this particular 
patent"?


> Raul


cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed