On 05/07/2011 11:17 AM, Mauro Santos wrote:
On 07-05-2011 17:05, Loui Chang wrote:
Or the distro could purchase or otherwise aquire licenses to all claimed
patents... ha... ha...
... and then you fall out of bed and wake up. Either that or someone
with very very very deep pockets needs to finance that.
I agree that all this software patent stuff is getting ridiculous but
it's what we have now. As far as I know most if not all distros (and
upstream) are leaving the choice of using patented stuff up to the end user.
Before we run around thinking that the sky is falling, we must first answer the
question "is the patent we are concerned with VALID?", "Who owns it?", and "Who
has the right to complain about its use?"
If someone isn't checking before disabling useful components of packages, then
that is something we should think about doing. The UPSTO has on-line access to
lookup and verify. It will list the owner, etc..
Intentionally crippling software base upon questionable patents is nuts.
As I've mentioned before, the damages available for infringement are "profits
received from the use of IP" Why OS distros with roughly $0 profits (total) are
so paranoid about possible violation from a compiled in library that represents
1/100,000 of the distros' offering is a bit bewildering.
Over the next few weeks, I'll take a look at the latest CLE papers I have on the
topic and see if I can put together a little checklist that can help make sure
we are only crippling the software legally that necessary.
As for faad2/faac - ffmpeg doesn't have a clue if patents are involved:
http://www.ffmpeg.org/legal.html
<quote>
...Also we have never read patents to implement any part of FFmpeg. ... What we
do know is that various standards FFmpeg supports contain vague hints that any
conforming implementation might be subject to some patent rights in some
jurisdictions...
</quote>
What information or supporting docs are we relying on in removing faac &
--non-free? Just curious really from a legal standpoint.
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
