3 ms·
> The original statement by the blogger, though a bit ambiguous, is technically entirely correct. Still, it is misleading at best. First, because the entire co
by AshamedCaptain 4y ago
> The original statement by the blogger, though a bit ambiguous, is technically entirely correct.
Still, it is misleading at best. First, because the entire contention is from open but patent-encumbered software (codecs) rather than outright non-distributable binaries. And second, because I'm assuming these *-bin packages are the exception, rather than the rule (e.g., same as the Gentoo LiveCD contents), so it's malicious to point it as an example of anything.
Gentoo is still (mostly) a source-based distribution, and when you finish the default install, you end up with a system that contains patent-encumbered software and can play/encode H264 out of the box. And render Truetype points, etc. IANAL, but it is dubious that the patent owner would make a difference based on whether the system was distributed as binaries or as "source code + automated build scripts", but apparently that is what the distro decided.
A much better example for the article to use would have been SuSE, which, despite being set in Europe, practically follows Fedora's reluctance to ship patent-encumbered software to the letter. In fact, SuSE has already followed Fedora on the choice to cripple Mesa (which is what triggered TFA).
But even choosing SUSE as an example would (conveniently) leave a big elephant on the room: Ubuntu. While perhaps not in the default install, Ubuntu is literally one click away from giving you access to all kinds of patent-encumbered software (via a prominent checkbox visible on the first dialog of the setup program, not a 3rd party mirror or anything). And as mentioned, even Debian is not as much on the "afraid" side as as Fedora is.
So different distributions do have different interpretations/responses to the same law in the same jurisdiction, making the entire "Law Compliance Cannot Be Voted" argument easily proved wrong. Heck, even the different distros' legal teams often give different advice...
- zinekeller 4y ago> And render Truetype points IIRC it's ClearType that have (at the time, they're expired now) patent issues, not TrueType. While there were patents for TrueType, it's not intentionally enforced.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoNo, it's really TrueType. Font hinting. I don't know if the patents were not enforced at all, but it was a headache for many years since many distros would cripple truetype renderers. Never used cleartype or any type of RGB subpixel rendering since it prevents rotating the displays.