[Mageia-dev] Mirror layout : Why validate software patents ?

Wed Dec 8 06:15:50 CET 2010

We have a proposal to add an optional set of respositories for packages 
+subject to software patents - or at least, seem to be at risk of civil 
+pursuits in some countries, based on supposed violation of software patents.
+
+As we know, the suggested name for these repositories is "tainted".
+Some suggested that a negative name would denigrate the quality of the 
+software contained, so another name should be chosen.  Myself included.
+
+Then some bright individual suggested that this was equivalent to 
+debating the colour to paint a bike shed.
+
+Which got me thinking.
+
+Suppose some company claimed a patent against the rpm data format. 
+(Presumably targeting RedHat.)
+So we transfer all rpm-related programs (rpdrake, urpmi, etc) into the 
+"tainted" repository.
+
+But wait a minute !
+
+By presenting a special set of repositories for patent-affected 
+software, we could be seen as justifying these patent sharks.
+In their minds, why else would be accommodate them ?
+
+Ok, I think, how many other distros have such repositories.  According 
+to comments on the list : none.
+So why are we breaking this ground for the patent sharks ?
+How many distros have been sued for patent violation ?
+Besides the SCO/Novell fiasco, it seems none.
+How many distro mirror sites have been affected by carrying 
+patent-threatened software ?
+To my knowledge : none.
+And what happens if there is a patent pursuit against Mageia or it's 
+mirrors ?
+Even if we have a separate repository, the package in question might end 
+up being withdrawn.  But it seems doubtful that one would want to 
+withdraw all potentially threatened packages.
+(That would be a big victory for patent sharks.)
+
+Thinking further, what reaction have we from potential mirror sites ?
+One such site administrator expressed opposition to the extra complexity 
+of the optional nature of these repositories.
+No report of anyone wanting to have an official mirror, that wanted such 
+repositories.
+So we don't seem to have any practical reason to have such a repository.
+
+So the question remains : Why validate software patents ?
+
+Something to consider.
+
+- André
+