

Debian Announces Position on Software Patents - sciurus
http://www.debian.org/News/2012/20120219

======
obtu
Considering the proliferation of software patents, with very general claims
like the XOR patent, all non-trivial software "infringes" anyway, no matter
how many fees are paid.

Politically it matters in that it means software patent laws are broken and
punish the creators of software.

But I don't think Debian should regard some software patents more highly than
others and refuse to distribute some software because of those. That gives
third parties leverage to make the distribution much less useful (for example
by selectively crippling multimedia on desktops), without breaking the
illusion that the law is really applied.

If these parties tried to mount actual legal challenges, they would have to
spend money, raise awareness of the law, publicly behave in an anti-
competitive manner, and risk losing some of their patents for, at most, an
interdiction of some packages in some jurisdiction. I don't see why Debian
should give this away.

~~~
elehack
This comment - and several others - seem to only be seeing half the picture in
this new policy. Yes, it says they won't distribute software the know to
infringe.

But the other aspects of the policy set up working practices and operating
procedures to minimize visible, organizational knowledge of patents. It seems
to me that they're actively trying to avoid knowing about patents so that they
don't have to invoke the no-distribute clause and, if they do get sued, can
hopefully keep away willful infringement claims. I think that's in general
been their goal, but the new policy provides a clear and consistent mechanism
for handling the issue.

~~~
TylerE
Wouldn't a publicly stated policy of willful ignorance negate any defense of
willful infringement?

If I make a point of not looking at speed limits signs, and pt a bumper
sticker on my car saying "I don't read speed limits", would it be reasonable
to expect the nice police officer to not write me a ticket?

~~~
wrs
I have worked for and with a lot of major technology corporations, and the
official policy for employees has always been "willful ignorance": do not read
patents, do not discuss patents, except with an attorney. So a lot of highly-
paid patent attorneys must feel this is a valid approach.

That is one reason it's obvious the patent system is off the rails -- since
part of the idea of patents is to encourage people to publish their
inventions, presumably to be read by others.

------
bobowzki
Would it be possible to design an open source license that disallows the use
of the software by corporations holding software patents..?

Or something that would make holding software patents crippling?

~~~
vog
The current GPL (GPLv3) does implement this goal, but in a different way. It
has a very clever paragraph that basically says: If you distribute the
software you give basically every user a free licence of your patent.

More information: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-
gplv3.html#stronger-...](http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-
gplv3.html#stronger-protection-against-patent-threats)

~~~
rmc
It's a shame that the GPLv3 isn't more commonly used. The GPLv2 has some
language & sections that would mean you cannot sue people with patent claims,
however, due to how patents and copyright differ, all these things kick in
only if you write the code and have the patent, i.e. if Microsoft were to
release, under GPLv3, code that they patented, it would be OK. If I write code
that implements the H264/mp4 codec, then we can all still be sued for patent
infringment.

~~~
CJefferson
This is exactly the reason why many people don't use the GPLv3. If Apple
distributed a slightly modified GCC, they would be also given away every
patent they have that might be used anywhere in GCC. That is unacceptable, as
doing a full search over the whole source code for patent usage isn't
reasonable.

~~~
rmc
I upvoted you, but I disagree with your conclusion. Some people (e.g. myself)
think that it would be great if Apple had to go open source.

~~~
CJefferson
Oh, I would love it if Apple went open source.

However, if I was running Apple, I would consider applying applying a fairly
substantial amount of money into avoiding GPL3. This appears to be exactly
what Apple are doing (I don't think their support of clang after gcc went GPL3
is a coincidence, maybe I'm wrong).

~~~
ars
See here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559990> "Apple’s great GPL
purge"

------
Flimm
This is the first article of the policy:

> Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents; Debian
> contributors should not package or distribute software they know to infringe
> a patent.

That seems a bit too vague for me. Would free software like Mono, VLC or
ffmpeg fall under this category? Many people would say that they are patent
encumbered, (and of course, many would say the opposite).

~~~
lmm
Have you ever used Debian? It already doesn't distribute many codecs for
precisely this reason.

~~~
Flimm
Currently, Debian does distribute Mono, VLC and ffmpeg, I'm not aware of the
codecs you speak of.

(Oh, and I do use Debian, five days a week, but I don't see how that's
relevant to my question.)

~~~
elehack
They didn't - last I knew - distribute LAME or other MP3 encoders. I think the
patent enforcement situation has changed since that call was originally made,
but earlier (late 90's, early 2000's), the patent owners were enforcing
patents for encoders but not decoders.

------
1010011010
There's only one correct position: Software patents shouldn't exist.

------
sedachv
This is a good step. One thing people don't remember is the mid-2000s Linux
Foundation Patent Commons initiative. At one time Oracle was a member
(<http://lwn.net/Articles/227902/>).

------
DiabloD3
Time to move Mono to the non-free repo where it belongs.

~~~
kprobst
Mono is Free Software [1]. You might be confusing licensing with potential
patent encumbrance, perhaps on purpose since one of your activities here seems
to involve spreading disinformation about that project [2]. Which perhaps is
not surprising considering you also seem to be one of the regulars at
techrights. [3]

[1] <http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing>

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347529>

[3] <http://goo.gl/8Xb4R>

~~~
DiabloD3
I interpret Debian's statement as "we will reject all forms of Patent
Aggression", and Microsoft, through the Mono project, has been aggressive
about patents.

~~~
kprobst
> Microsoft, through the Mono project, has been aggressive about patents.

Can you please point out something that backs this statement? Not to dismiss
the fact that Microsoft uses patents offensively, because they do, but
specifically related to, or in the context of, the Mono project.

------
davidw
This is about as surprising as discovering that Ursidae defecate in the
forest.

~~~
danieldk
True, but the linked FAQ is very informative for anyone involved in open
source software development, or software development in general:

<http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq>

