Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: Marty <martyb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:35:01 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
hendrik writes:Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US, anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel?
No (that patent is not new).
Do we have to stop distributing the kernel until we've done so?
No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents. Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the owner is likely to enforce them on us.
Does this policy also determine the "non-free" designation, and/or whether a package ends up in the Marillat repository, rather than main?
Is it time to revive the non-US repository so that at least the rest or the world can still transfer files between Linux and Windows?
Don't forget non-DE as well.
I never understood the reasoning for this approach. This divides free software according to local ordinances. I think the countries which impose them should be designated "non-free" instead.
This raises another point which is unclear to me -- how much of the current "non-free" repository is like the old "non-US" in that the problem is really non-free local ordinances, rather than software licenses?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: John Hasler
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- References:
- FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: hendrik
- Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- From: John Hasler
- FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Prev by Date: Re: Partition of 189GB gives with df 19 GB.
- Next by Date: Re: [OT]AGP card for dual DVI setup?
- Previous by thread: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Next by thread: Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|