7 ms·

Debian Announces Position on Software Patents

88 points by sciurus 15y ago

davidw 15y ago
This is about as surprising as discovering that Ursidae defecate in the forest.
- kylemaxwell 15y ago
  Agreed: as soon as I knew that they had a (new?!) position on software patents, I knew what it would be. Still, it's worth keeping the issue front and center.
- dfc 15y ago
  I guess presidents day is a slow news day on hn:)
- danieldk 15y ago
  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 http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq
DiabloD3 15y ago
Time to move Mono to the non-free repo where it belongs.
- kprobst 15y ago
  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 http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347529 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347529 [3] http://goo.gl/8Xb4R http://goo.gl/8Xb4R
  - DiabloD3 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      > 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.
Flimm 15y ago
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 15y ago
  Have you ever used Debian? It already doesn't distribute many codecs for precisely this reason.
  - Flimm 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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.
  - zacgarrett 15y ago
    see also: IceCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat It is a version of Firefox with the branding removed as that portion has a copyright by Mozilla. This project started in 2004-2005. I actually thought the policy in the original post has always been Debian's policy.
    - Flimm 15y ago
      Mozilla has trademark rights over the Firefox name and logo, and they license the logo's image file under a proprietary copyright license. It has nothing to do with patents, so the new policy does not affect that issue at all.
bobowzki 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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-protection-against-patent-threats http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#stronger-...
  - rmc 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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 15y ago
        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.
obtu 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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.
sedachv 15y ago
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/ http://lwn.net/Articles/227902/).
1010011010 15y ago
There's only one correct position: Software patents shouldn't exist.

88 points by sciurus 15y ago

davidw 15y ago

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

kylemaxwell 15y ago
Agreed: as soon as I knew that they had a (new?!) position on software patents, I knew what it would be. Still, it's worth keeping the issue front and center.
dfc 15y ago
I guess presidents day is a slow news day on hn:)
danieldk 15y ago
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 http://www.debian.org/reports/patent-faq

DiabloD3 15y ago

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

kprobst 15y ago
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 http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347529 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3347529 [3] http://goo.gl/8Xb4R http://goo.gl/8Xb4R
- DiabloD3 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    > 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.

Flimm 15y ago

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 15y ago
Have you ever used Debian? It already doesn't distribute many codecs for precisely this reason.
- Flimm 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.
- zacgarrett 15y ago
  see also: IceCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat It is a version of Firefox with the branding removed as that portion has a copyright by Mozilla. This project started in 2004-2005. I actually thought the policy in the original post has always been Debian's policy.
  - Flimm 15y ago
    Mozilla has trademark rights over the Firefox name and logo, and they license the logo's image file under a proprietary copyright license. It has nothing to do with patents, so the new policy does not affect that issue at all.

bobowzki 15y ago

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 15y ago
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-protection-against-patent-threats http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#stronger-...
- rmc 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      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.

obtu 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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.

sedachv 15y ago

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/ http://lwn.net/Articles/227902/).

1010011010 15y ago

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