Comments on: Miredo/Toredo Patent Status http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2005/12/27/miredotoredo-patent-status/ Matt Browns thoughts on Life, Linux and lots of other things... Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:18:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Aigars Mahinovs http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2005/12/27/miredotoredo-patent-status/comment-page-1/#comment-107 Aigars Mahinovs Sun, 01 Jan 2006 16:26:43 +0000 http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/?p=31#comment-107 After fighting against software patents in EU I can only agree to Andrew - ignore patents and their licences unless they bite you. The software can still be used in sane countries, so there no reason to not include it. Also with patent licences the situation is opposite of copyright licences - you are allowed to do anything until something is forbidden and enforced. (This of course depends on jurisdiction) After fighting against software patents in EU I can only agree to Andrew – ignore patents and their licences unless they bite you. The software can still be used in sane countries, so there no reason to not include it.
Also with patent licences the situation is opposite of copyright licences – you are allowed to do anything until something is forbidden and enforced. (This of course depends on jurisdiction)

]]> By: Wookey http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2005/12/27/miredotoredo-patent-status/comment-page-1/#comment-105 Wookey Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:47 +0000 http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/?p=31#comment-105 One thing to bear in mind is that patents only apply in the jurisdiction they are granted in (USA, UK, Belize, Sweden etc). Debian is distributed everywhere, so even if some bit of software is at risk of being infringing if used in one country, it does not really mnake sense for Debian not to distribute it at all. This is a bit like the time when the US had restrictive crypto-export laws, although not entirely analagous. Also, in general, software distribution does not constitute patent infringement - you have to use the software to do that. However it can be construed as 'contributory infringement'. Given the crazy software patent situation in the US, where almost any new software will be infringing some patent or other, it doesn't make much sense for Debian to not include software that might be infringing in a particular jurisdiction. On the other hand if Microsoft's licence definately applies then that would seem to preclude it being part of Debian, except in non-free. Does it? Or is this code an indepedent re-implementation? One thing to bear in mind is that patents only apply in the jurisdiction they are granted in (USA, UK, Belize, Sweden etc). Debian is distributed everywhere, so even if some bit of software is at risk of being infringing if used in one country, it does not really mnake sense for Debian not to distribute it at all. This is a bit like the time when the US had restrictive crypto-export laws, although not entirely analagous.

Also, in general, software distribution does not constitute patent infringement – you have to use the software to do that. However it can be construed as ‘contributory infringement’.

Given the crazy software patent situation in the US, where almost any new software will be infringing some patent or other, it doesn’t make much sense for Debian to not include software that might be infringing in a particular jurisdiction.

On the other hand if Microsoft’s licence definately applies then that would seem to preclude it being part of Debian, except in non-free. Does it? Or is this code an indepedent re-implementation?

]]>