What do we think of this?

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 18:03 +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> [2007-03-27 10:03]:
> > Debian interprets free/non-free in the FSF sense of the term, not in
> > a legal sense.
> 
> Debian used to have a "non-US" repository, but that was mainly for
> crypto software before the crypto export laws got relaxed.  Sometimes
> people ask for the re-introduction of non-US to allow software that is
> not allowed in the US, but there are no plans to do this since the
> problem is not just with US law.
> 
> Unlike Tom asserted, Debian isn't willing to break US law.  For
> example, we don't distribute video encoding software. (*)  Regarding
> patents, the stand is basically that software with patents is okay as
> long the patents are not actively enforced.
> 
> ("free" is actually called "main")
> 
> (*) Yes, MP3 playback software is included.  I'm not quite sure why
> but possibly there's simply a different interpretation of the status
> of playback software.

Its patented. The patents are being actively enforced (by multiple
parties):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft

Also, I'm pretty sure that Debian is shipping DVD playback code, which
violates the DMCA.

~spot