> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Lennart Weller <lhw@...> wrote:
>> Am 28.03.2012 01:01, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
>>> Since you've accepted as fact that this software infringes those
>>> patents, it looks like you're about to violate item 1 of the Debian
>>> patent policy.
>> S3TC is not actively enforced by S3. And I took this thread  as a
>> reference to create the ITP anyway. According to this thread from 2010
>> there are at least three other projects already using the S3TC
>> algorithms. And there is more than one project which depends on this
>> package. e.g. 0ad and wine
>>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/12/msg00062.html >
> I think Ben's point is that the Debian Patent Policy was published
> on February 19, 2012, and therefore would supersede any previous
> consensus regarding the inclusion of patent encumbered software where
> the included patents are not being actively enforced.
> Personally, I agree with the posters in the thread you cited. If
> this is going to be the project's official position, it may as well
> close shop.
I must have missed this policy when it was announced. Who wrote that
policy? It changes long standing traditions in Debian. The first
Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents
is impossible. Debian would have to stop distributing almost
anything. I am sure gcc is encumbered by unenforced patents.
Also, the third item, AKA "The first rule of Patents is that we do not
talk about Patents", is too broad. If someone posts publicly, then no
one would be surprised to see it quoted far and wide. Attorneys can
subpoena your private records, but they could do that regardless of
whether you posted something publicly. Was the intention of that
point that you should not discuss anything in private except with an
attorney? So do not post anything to debian-private expecting it not
to get subpoenaed? That would be more sensible advice.
The other points are good, but those two really made me scratch my