| Author |
Message |
detaos
|
|
Post subject: Debian's new `Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ`
 Posted: 10.07.2011, 09:45
|
|
Team Member
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 166
Location: floating in the ether
Status: Offline
|
|
For those interested in becoming better educated on the patent issues currently wreaking havoc on the greater software community (both free and non-free), Debian has published a Community Distribution Patent Policy FAQ. This is an issue very close to home for the aptosid project. Every time some asks why we censor anything **multimedia** related, emotions run high. Unfortunately, this is a legal issue, which we as a small team comprised entirely of volunteers can not afford to fight. Hopefully this FAQ will offer some clarification on the issues at hand.
link: http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq
In particular, pay close attention to the Induced Infringement and Contributory Infringement sections. |
_________________
#aptosid-art ftw!
(what would cleary do?)
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
towo
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Debian
Posted: 10.07.2011, 09:51
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-13
Posts: 500
Location: Pößneck / Thüringen
Status: Offline
|
|
| Censoring words has nothing to do with this faq. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
detaos
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 10.07.2011, 09:58
|
|
Team Member
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 166
Location: floating in the ether
Status: Offline
|
|
Direct quote from the FAQ: "Contributory Infringement" means providing material assistance to the infringement of a patent.
If we knowingly host specific directions and links to **multimedia** related software which infringes various software patents then we are guilty of contributory infringement. |
_________________
#aptosid-art ftw!
(what would cleary do?)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
towo
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 10.07.2011, 09:59
|
|
Joined: 2010-09-13
Posts: 500
Location: Pößneck / Thüringen
Status: Offline
|
|
word != link
But i see, the same as ever. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
slam
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Debian
Posted: 10.07.2011, 10:01
|
|
Team Member
Joined: 1970-01-01
Posts: 607
Location: w3
Status: Offline
|
|
Of course it does - it protects the team and it's members (and our users as well) against patent ligitation (and other legal threads).
Thanks for the link, very well written primer to the "FOSS and Patent Infringement" topic.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
an operating system must operate
development is life
my Debian repo
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
slam
|
|
|
Post subject: RE: Debian
Posted: 10.07.2011, 10:03
|
|
Team Member
Joined: 1970-01-01
Posts: 607
Location: w3
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
detaos
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 10.07.2011, 10:08
|
|
Team Member
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 166
Location: floating in the ether
Status: Offline
|
|
| towo: That is an untested legal theory, which we are simply not willing to be the test case for. Perhaps it's odd that the members of such a bleeding-edge distribution are risk adverse (or maybe that's why our final product is of such a high quality), but that's the way we are. Feel free to host and distribute the information elsewhere; we simply can not afford the risk. Are you going to help cover the muli-million dollar damages when the Fraunhofer Institute or MPEG LA come knocking on our door? |
_________________
#aptosid-art ftw!
(what would cleary do?)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
bfree
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: 10.07.2011, 13:37
|
|
Team Member
Joined: 2010-08-26
Posts: 260
Status: Offline
|
|
And the linked document only deals with patent issues which does not cover all the threats.
There is a significant threat from the WIPO Copyright Treaty inspired laws such as the DMCA and laws enacted following the EUCD..
Here's the relevant snippet which applies explicitly to me within my own national borders, but the USA now seems to believe it can enfoce it's laws via extradition if they can associate actions to a domain name they believe falls under their control.
Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 PART VII Technological Protection Measures Chapter 1 Rights Protection Measures
Quote:
370.—(1) This section applies where, by or with the licence of the rightsowner—
(a) copies of copyright works to which rights protection measures have been applied or recordings of performances to which rights protection measures have been applied, are made available to the public, or
(b) copies of databases to which rights protection measures have been applied, are re-utilised.
(2) A person who makes available to the public or re-utilises the copies referred to in subsection (1) has the same rights and remedies against a person who—
(a) (i) makes,
(ii) sells, rents or lends, or offers or exposes for sale, rental or loan,
(iii) imports into the State, or
(iv) has in his or her possession, custody or control,
a protection-defeating device, knowing or having reason to believe that it has been or is to be used to circumvent rights protection measures, or
(b) provides information, or offers or performs any service, intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent rights protection measures,
as a rightsowner has in respect of an infringement of any of his or her rights under this Act.
Emphasis mine obviously to draw attention to how just a word or any hint which points someone in the "wrong" direction could be construed as assisting someone to circumvent so called rights protection measures. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
