|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > July 2004 > MPlayer
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Lior Kaplan 2004-07-18, 5:55 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I didn't find any package for MPlayer on the main repository. I checked
its license and found it to be GPL v2
(http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/info.html)
Any reason that it won't have a package?
(if I'm not mistaken, it used to be under a non DFSG license in the past)
p.s.
Please CC me to replies, I'm not subscribed.
- --
Regards,
Lior Kaplan
Webmaster@Guides.co.il
http://www.Guides.co.il
Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA+uGPFViURZnoHaARAgohAJ4lwifgEJbX
p9lfuipZ9DLBWMT9PQCdH1kh
wc12CqdhV6zAt+tBIaTYdTM=
=6xdf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| William Ballard 2004-07-18, 5:55 pm |
| On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 11:46:09PM +0300, Lior Kaplan wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> I didn't find any package for MPlayer on the main repository. I checked
> its license and found it to be GPL v2
> (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/info.html)
>
> Any reason that it won't have a package?
>
> (if I'm not mistaken, it used to be under a non DFSG license in the past)
The codecs it depends on (essential*) are propriatary; it's a huge
illegal pile of mess which happens to be wonderful. (BTW,
BigMeanEvilCompanies could come down hard on Linux for using this
illegal piece of software).
But the source is debianized: just download it and run fakeroot
debian/rules binary; but you'll need to install a lot of -dev packages
and modifiy the configure part of debian/rules.
This is a FAQ and sure to start a flamewar on the list: go read the
archives.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Greg Folkert 2004-07-18, 8:54 pm |
| For mplayer and "other" wonderful products that are "under lock and key"
by those BMEC...
# Christian Marillat's stuff
deb ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/ unstable main
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster: Linux
| |
| Bas Zoetekouw 2004-07-19, 7:52 am |
| Hi William!
You wrote:
> The codecs it depends on (essential*) are propriatary; it's a huge
> illegal pile of mess which happens to be wonderful.
AFAIK, free versions of the most frequently used codecs are widely
available.
--
Kind regards,
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michelle Konzack 2004-07-19, 5:58 pm |
| Am 2004-07-19 13:28:04, schrieb Bas Zoetekouw:
>Hi William!
>
>You wrote:
>
>
>AFAIK, free versions of the most frequently used codecs are widely
>available.
I was wondering, why it was not done...
Creating a GPL'ed version which contains the free codecs
and seperatly packages for the non-free stuff.
Oh yes, if you have bought a Windows Version with for example
your Computer, you can use the Win32 codecs as you want.
Not all is realy Illegal...
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
| |
| Matthew Palmer 2004-07-19, 5:58 pm |
| On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:28:04PM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> You wrote:
>
>
> AFAIK, free versions of the most frequently used codecs are widely
> available.
In some cases, no they're not. Not because they're not GPL'd or whatever,
but because they contain patented (hack, spit!) algorithms which are being
actively enforced. From memory, there's some MPEG stuff in there like that.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| William Ballard 2004-07-19, 5:58 pm |
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:35:08AM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Oh yes, if you have bought a Windows Version with for example
> your Computer, you can use the Win32 codecs as you want.
>
> Not all is realy Illegal...
Well, it looks like the flamewar is gonna start anyway. Surely it's a
violation of the DMCA even to reverse engineer the codecs. The whole
thing just smells like "big steaming lawsuit waiting to happen." BigBad
Companies always sue you when you've got something they want, and/or
don't keep your nose to the grindstone. I was trading MP3s since '97,
and it wasn't until 13 year olds started doing it and costing BigBad
Companies money that they made it illegal -- and boy howdy did they ever
do that.
I wouldn't touch MPlayer with a 15 pole. Then again, maybe these codecs
fall under the "middleware" provision of the Justice Department act and
have to be opened up.
Basically the situation is Mplayer isn't taking away any market share
from anybody, even though it's highly useful under Linux, but it sure
seems awfully lawsuit-prone to me.
There. Flame on.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Greg Folkert 2004-07-19, 5:58 pm |
| On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 17:53, William Ballard wrote:
[snip]
> Well, it looks like the flamewar is gonna start anyway. Surely it's a
> violation of the DMCA even to reverse engineer the codecs. The whole
> thing just smells like "big steaming lawsuit waiting to happen." BigBad
> Companies always sue you when you've got something they want, and/or
> don't keep your nose to the grindstone. I was trading MP3s since '97,
> and it wasn't until 13 year olds started doing it and costing BigBad
> Companies money that they made it illegal -- and boy howdy did they ever
> do that.
[snip]
If you have Windows installed on your machine, you are just using
already installed files on your system, though in fact by Windows...
doesn't matter.
--
greg, greg@gregfolkert.net
The technology that is
Stronger, better, faster: Linux
| |
| Michelle Konzack 2004-07-19, 8:49 pm |
| Am 2004-07-19 19:45:02, schrieb Greg Folkert:
>If you have Windows installed on your machine, you are just using
>already installed files on your system, though in fact by Windows...
>doesn't matter.
This is, what I like to tell...
Someone which has bought Windows, can use the DLL's freely.
I have Win95, NT 3.51, NT 4.0 (WS + Server), XP Pro and 2003 Entreprise
Server and I have extracted all DLL's from the CAB's. I can use it how
I want...
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
| |
| Michelle Konzack 2004-07-19, 8:49 pm |
| Forgotten somthing...
Am 2004-07-19 19:45:02, schrieb Greg Folkert:
>If you have Windows installed on your machine, you are just using
>already installed files on your system, though in fact by Windows...
>doesn't matter.
There is a tool "cabextract" or somthing like this...
And if "mplayer" comes only with free codecs, there can be a
function or script which can extract the right codecs directly
from the original Windows CD's.
So it is not impossibel to get "mplayer" in Debian...
But Upstream dont like this idea I think...
Note: I do know many Linux users which own legal Windows CD's
and can use it legal...
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/88452356 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
| |
| Carlos Laviola 2004-07-20, 2:53 am |
| On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 03:59:34 +0200, Michelle Konzack
<linux4michelle@freenet.de> wrote:
> Forgotten somthing...
>
> Am 2004-07-19 19:45:02, schrieb Greg Folkert:
>
>
> There is a tool "cabextract" or somthing like this...
>
> And if "mplayer" comes only with free codecs, there can be a
> function or script which can extract the right codecs directly
> from the original Windows CD's.
>
> So it is not impossibel to get "mplayer" in Debian...
> But Upstream dont like this idea I think...
As mentioned before in the thread, mplayer can't be included in Debian
because large portions of code it relies upon, even if they're
released under a free license(http://ffmpeg.sf.net) are based on, or
similar to, patented algorithms, which makes it a problem for us. It's
the same thing that keeps LAME out of Debian, as far as I know.
--
Carlos Laviola
carlos.laviola@gmail.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Alexander Wirt 2004-07-20, 2:53 am |
| Carlos Laviola wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 03:59:34 +0200, Michelle Konzack
> <linux4michelle@freenet.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> As mentioned before in the thread, mplayer can't be included in Debian
> because large portions of code it relies upon, even if they're
> released under a free license(http://ffmpeg.sf.net) are based on, or
> similar to, patented algorithms, which makes it a problem for us. It's
> the same thing that keeps LAME out of Debian, as far as I know.
>
Then please remove all mp3players [1] and Xine [2] too, as they also use
patented algorithms.
debian-legal overlooked the mplayer source
Its stupid to take mplayer out of debian where other software with the
same problem is outside. I don't ask to remove them, but to be
consistent. The mplayer team spent much work on getting mplayer DFSG
Free, somebody should honor this work.
Alex
[1] http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html
[2]
formorer@lisa:~$ apt-get source libxine1
....
formorer@lisa:~/xine-lib-1-rc5$ grep -r ffmpeg * | wc -l
650
any questions ?
[3] See the mplayer reloaded thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega...3/msg00235.html
--
Alexander "formorer" Wirt KeyID: BC7D020A
EMail: formorer@formorer.de ICQ: 28651245
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Sam Hocevar 2004-07-20, 2:53 am |
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004, Carlos Laviola wrote:
> As mentioned before in the thread, mplayer can't be included in Debian
> because large portions of code it relies upon, even if they're
> released under a free license(http://ffmpeg.sf.net) are based on, or
> similar to, patented algorithms, which makes it a problem for us. It's
> the same thing that keeps LAME out of Debian, as far as I know.
A patent is not the end of the world; Debian only refrains from
distributing patented software if the patent is actually actively
enforced (such as the MP3 encoding patents in the LAME case). IMHO
ffmpeg is not really troublesome, because it does not include MP3
encoding or AAC encoding/decoding functions.
--
Sam.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| William Ballard 2004-07-20, 2:53 am |
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:21:40AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004, Carlos Laviola wrote:
>
>
> A patent is not the end of the world; Debian only refrains from
> distributing patented software if the patent is actually actively
> enforced (such as the MP3 encoding patents in the LAME case). IMHO
> ffmpeg is not really troublesome, because it does not include MP3
> encoding or AAC encoding/decoding functions.
Given what's going on in the world: kids getting sued on Napster, and
projectionists wearing night vision goggles, MPlayer just doesn't pass
the "smell test." Right now no one notices it, but it will get totally
smacked around like a redheaded stepchild as soon as they do.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-07-20, 2:53 am |
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:00AM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:21:40AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Given what's going on in the world: kids getting sued on Napster, and
> projectionists wearing night vision goggles, MPlayer just doesn't pass
> the "smell test." Right now no one notices it, but it will get totally
> smacked around like a redheaded stepchild as soon as they do.
This is scaremongering, and is no basis for deciding whether to
distribute a piece of software in the archive. There is a big
difference between exercising due caution, and cowering in fear at the
spectre of a lawsuit. I trust that the ftp-masters simply haven't had
the time necessary to review the current mplayer situation with the
detail that it warrants.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Don Armstrong 2004-07-20, 7:50 am |
| On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> debian-legal overlooked the mplayer source
While technically correct (I myself looked at it) no one (to my
knowledge) from debian-legal (whatever that means) has done a thorough
examination of the source.
I personally stopped after finding a single GPL issue in under 5
minutes of looking,[1] and then spent a numerous messages attempting
to explain to upstream why they needed to conform to the terms of the
GPL. [It's possible that this issue was resolved already... I'm just
explaining why there is a bit of reluctance on the part of people of
-legal to wander through the package and really vet it.]
See also the most recent thread where this was brought up on
-legal.[2]
Regardless, as the package is in NEW, presumably ftpmaster would be
the people that the *maintainer*[3] should be in (polite!) contact
with to help resolve any outstanding issues. If ftpmaster needs it, I
believe they can request someone on -legal go through and vette the
work, or locate any remaining issues.
Don Armstrong
1: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/...7.d4d99298.html
2: http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/...9.0057e2bb.html
3: Lest someone feel the need to create another amd64 style incendiary
fest...
--
It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
smoking.
-- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| John Hasler 2004-07-20, 7:50 am |
| William Ballard writes:
> Given what's going on in the world: kids getting sued on Napster, and
> projectionists wearing night vision goggles, MPlayer just doesn't pass
> the "smell test." Right now no one notices it, but it will get totally
> smacked around like a redheaded stepchild as soon as they do.
If we start removing everything that contains a patent that might be
enforced there will soon be nothing less than twenty years old left.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jean-Francois Dive 2004-07-20, 7:50 am |
| absolutly true, about every possible thing in the world is patented. The
prior art thing just . Well just doesn't seems to exist.
Otherwise the list is quite long just top of my head: certicom -> diffie-hellman (so
openssl, ike, openvpn, well every possible public key based auth
protos), l2tp (cisco), pptp (ms), vrrp (cisco), and i am sure we can
find something about forwarding packet with a cache (f*** we need to
remove the kernel too !!) and that's just the last stuffs i checked on.
Look at most of the ietf rfc's and drafts, they all mention IP stuffs.
The problem are patents. Strictly enforcing code copyrights is, i believe,
an absolute must, but if you start with patents the same way, we better should
start all doing close source stuffs again or the debian archive will
move soon to kazaa and bittorrent. dooh ! those may well become illegals
as well, better do it soon.
J.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:29:04AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> William Ballard writes:
>
> If we start removing everything that contains a patent that might be
> enforced there will soon be nothing less than twenty years old left.
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
--
-> Jean-Francois Dive
--> jef@linuxbe.org
I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability.
-- Oscar Wilde
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| William Ballard 2004-07-20, 5:59 pm |
| On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 01:41:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is scaremongering, and is no basis for deciding whether to
> distribute a piece of software in the archive. There is a big
> difference between exercising due caution, and cowering in fear at the
> spectre of a lawsuit. I trust that the ftp-masters simply haven't had
Knock yourselves out. Don't come crying to anyone when the most
blatantly obvious potentiality in the world becomes an actuality.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Frederik Dannemare 2004-07-20, 5:59 pm |
| =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 July 2004 09:21, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004, Carlos Laviola wrote:
>
> A patent is not the end of the world; Debian only refrains from
> distributing patented software if the patent is actually actively
> enforced (such as the MP3 encoding patents in the LAME case). IMHO
> ffmpeg is not really troublesome, because it does not include MP3
> encoding or AAC encoding/decoding functions.
Does this mean we will see your ITP on ffmpeg actually go through=20
sometimes in the near future? I would very much like to see it in=20
Debian. Now, more than ever, since I recently adopted[1] motion (still=20
need a sponsor, though - hint, hint anyone ;) ), and the availability=20
of ffmpeg in Debian would certainly beef up the power of motion.
[1]http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D254336
=2D --=20
=46rederik Dannemare | mailto:frederik@dannemare.net
GnuPG key: search for 'dannemare' on http://pgpkeys.mit.edu
Key fingerprint: BB7B 078A 0DBF 7663 180A F84A 2D25 FAD5 9C4E B5A8
http://frederik.dannemare.net | http://www.linuxworlddomination.dk
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA/ YNrLSX61ZxOtagRAs1jAJ0YjzlpREPR3eht0w6Yc
fyNW3u2KwCeJop8
qZW/D1DMTi4CLy1k6+iy/kU=3D
=3DYfCK
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-07-20, 5:59 pm |
| On 2004-07-20 Frederik Dannemare <frederik@dannemare.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 July 2004 09:21, Sam Hocevar wrote:
[...]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Does this mean we will see your ITP on ffmpeg actually go through
> sometimes in the near future?
[...]
ffmpeg is sitting in queue/new, waiting for the ftp-masters
(dis)approval, Sam has uploaded it four days ago.
cu andreas
PS: While we are at it, please note how tiny queue/new currently is,
today in the morning it was down to 16 packages, all that is left are
difficult cases like mplayer and very recent uploads.
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Florian Weimer 2004-07-21, 7:57 am |
| * Matthew Palmer:
> In some cases, no they're not. Not because they're not GPL'd or
> whatever, but because they contain patented (hack, spit!) algorithms
> which are being actively enforced.
So what? This also applies to JPEG.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthew Palmer 2004-07-21, 5:58 pm |
| On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:49:15AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Matthew Palmer:
>
>
> So what? This also applies to JPEG.
What litigation is current for infringing use of a patent related the JPEG
standard?
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Aaron Lehmann 2004-07-21, 8:48 pm |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:08:42AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> What litigation is current for infringing use of a patent related the JPEG
> standard?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?...tid=152&tid=123
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthew Palmer 2004-07-22, 2:50 am |
| On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:26:34PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:08:42AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?...tid=152&tid=123
Yeehah, it's GIF all over again. Goat f**kers.
Oh, what fun and games to file all the bugs to get the code removed for a
few years.
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-07-22, 2:50 am |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:33:49AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:26:34PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>
> Yeehah, it's GIF all over again. Goat f**kers.
>
> Oh, what fun and games to file all the bugs to get the code removed for a
> few years.
It expires in October anyway. Unless Debian is actually served with a
cease-and-desist and the claim looks legitimate, no bug-filing should
happen.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Matthew Palmer 2004-07-22, 2:50 am |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:49:57AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:33:49AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> It expires in October anyway.
Don't US patents last 20 years now? Or does that only apply to patents
filed / approved / whatever after the date of the change?
> Unless Debian is actually served with a cease-and-desist and the claim
> looks legitimate, no bug-filing should happen.
I'm happy to cede to your authority. But this is a different way of
handling a patent threat than was applied for the LZW patent. Or did Debian
receive such an order in the LZW case?
- Matt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Wouter Verhelst 2004-07-22, 2:50 am |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:23:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:49:57AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
>
> Don't US patents last 20 years now? Or does that only apply to patents
> filed / approved / whatever after the date of the change?
Indeed. However, this patent was owned by a company which has recently
been acquired by another one. That new company is filing suits, the
other wasn't.
A company being acquired by another (luckily) doesn't renew patent
terms. This patent expires in October.
>
> I'm happy to cede to your authority. But this is a different way of
> handling a patent threat than was applied for the LZW patent. Or did Debian
> receive such an order in the LZW case?
No, but the term in which LZW patents could be filed was much longer.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Florian Weimer 2004-07-22, 7:55 am |
| * Colin Watson:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:33:49AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> It expires in October anyway.
The European patent expires in October 2007.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Giacomo A. Catenazzi 2004-07-22, 7:55 am |
|
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Colin Watson:
>
>
> The European patent expires in October 2007.
Does european patent (on software) really exist?
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo 2004-07-22, 7:55 am |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> Does european patent (on software) really exist?
Patent probably exists, but it's not valid at least yet.
You can patent software in Europe but, as far as European Parliament won't
vote patent directive, all those patents are nugatory.
regards
fEnIo
--
_ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:fenio@o2.pl | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo
_|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska
(0 0) phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link
ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:fenio@jabber.org | RLU:172001
| |
| Florian Weimer 2004-07-22, 6:01 pm |
| * Giacomo A. Catenazzi:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>
> Does european patent (on software) really exist?
Yes, unfortunately it does, at least to the extent that people are
getting sued for infringement.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andrew Suffield 2004-07-22, 6:01 pm |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 01:21:07PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>
> Does european patent (on software) really exist?
No. A few individual countries in Europe have them. Several patent
offices in Europe take software patent filings despite them being
unenforcable.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
| |
| Jesus Climent 2004-07-28, 6:23 pm |
| On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:43:15PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> Yes, unfortunately it does, at least to the extent that people are
> getting sued for infringement.
huh?! Software idea patents being enforced? where?
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.26|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
I don't wanna hear old sad bastard music Barry, I just want something I can
ignore.
--Rob (High Fidelity)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Petter Reinholdtsen 2004-07-28, 6:23 pm |
| [Jesus Climent]
> huh?! Software idea patents being enforced? where?
In the land of the free-roaming lawyers.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|