Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261221AbVDIAbb (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:31:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261222AbVDIAbb (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:31:31 -0400 Received: from zxa8020.lanisdn-gte.net ([206.46.31.146]:24548 "EHLO links.magenta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261221AbVDIAb1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:31:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:31:22 -0400 From: Raul Miller To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. Message-ID: <20050408203122.E32136@links.magenta.com> References: <20050404100929.GA23921@pegasos> <87ekdq1xlp.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <20050404141647.GA28649@pegasos> <20050404175130.GA11257@kroah.com> <20050404190518.GA17087@wonderland.linux.it> <20050404193204.GD4087@stusta.de> <1112709907.30856.17.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> <20050407210722.GC4325@stusta.de> <1112944920.11027.13.camel@silicium.ccc.cea.fr> <20050408173400.GA15688@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20050408173400.GA15688@stusta.de>; from bunk@stusta.de on Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1458 Lines: 33 On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > If Debian was at least consistent. > > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues > than RedHat? It's impossible to treat patents consistently. The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on natural laws, on stuff that's already patented, on stuff with clear prior art, on trivial math operations and so on. Patents are being granted so quickly there's no way of even knowing what's patented. Or were you hoping that Debian would follow Red Hat's lead? As for this particular patent, I'm not really sure what's being patented. Trial and error? Spectral quantization? The specific data format? Addition, multiplication, and exponentiation? In many respects, mp3 is similar to jpeg. Does that mean that any use of the techniques used by jpeg in the domain of audio is covered by this patent? Does that mean that jpeg is in violation of this patent? If I use the same kind of math with a time dimension, am I violating some other mpeg patents? What about the other hundreds of thousands of patents? How many of them am I violating when I use lossy compression based on spectral quantization? -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/