David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Looking at it from a larger viewpoint, the idea that merely distributing > source code and saying, "don't use this" gets around patent law is > fairly silly.
Not really. Particularly if in fact no one is using that part of the code distributed by Debian. > The only sane interpretation is that creating source code > is "making" the invention, and that source code is the invention. I > can't see any other interpretation that doesn't lead to absurdity. On the hand, perhaps the only way to understand patents is to embrace absurdity. How do you propose to cope with patents where there is nothing to be "made"? For example, there are patents covering teaching methods that don't depend on any special equipment or materials. There are patents on business methods that cover activies with no associated hardware or software. There is a patent covering a "method of swinging on a swing" (the swing itself is standard; the patent covers a particular way of using it; no additional equipment is required). The only sane interpretation is that patents cover ideas and the use of the idea. Distributing a description of an idea in such a way that you are not causing other people to use the idea does not to me look like an infringement. Some patents include working source code that implements the idea. The patents are available on-line from the US patent office. Is the US patent office itself infringing? I don't think so. I think the patent is infringed when someone uses the code (or the idea) for fun or profit, and someone who incites or assists people to do that may be guilty of contributory infringement. Is Debian inciting or assisting people to infringe the LZW patent by passing on this code where the only change Debian has made is to yet further discourage people from using the patented idea? Edmund
