[Fedora-packaging] Inaccurate information about LiVES package

[salsaman]

OK, Tom, thanks for clarifying that.


Salsaman.

http://lives.sourceforge.net
https://www.ohloh.net/accounts/salsaman



On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>wrote:

> On 06/01/2010 10:41 AM, salsaman wrote:
> > Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the
> > *core* of ffmpeg.
>
> Since I don't want anyone to get the impression that I didn't see this
> and chose to ignore it, let me reply.
>
> It is very difficult to have an open and honest discussion about
> patents. If I was to say "ffmpeg violates patent #123456789ABCDE" (1),
> it has the potential to be extremely damaging to Red Hat (or
> potentially, others), as merely doing so puts Red Hat at a much higher
> risk of being found guilty of "willful infringement" and subject to the
> possibility of "treble damages".
>
> For details on how that works, please read:
> http://www.mmmlaw.com/articles/article_234.pdf
>
> So, even if I were to clearly bound my statement as being applicable to
> only ffmpeg, I would be going on the public record as:
>
> * Being aware of Patent #123456789ABCDE (and accordingly, that Red Hat
> was aware)
> * Being familiar enough with Patent #123456789ABCDE to say that it is
> applicable in that case (so, obviously, both I and Red Hat must be aware
> of all other places where it is applicable)
>
> The patent holder(s) of #123456789ABCDE would then be able to go through
> EVERYTHING that Red Hat distributes (which is not a small amount of
> stuff), find anything that they feel that #123456789ABCDE infringes, and
> file suit, with my email response as evidence.
>
> So, you will never ever ever ever ever get an email from me or Red Hat
> that says "foo infringes patent #bar" or even "foo doesn't infringe
> patent #bar", because of what that means, and the risk it imposes on us.
>
> In 2009, the cost of the average patent lawsuit was $5,500,000. (2)
> That's just how much it costs to deal with the lawsuit. The damages,
> should the court find for the patent holder, could easily be 5 to 10
> times that amount.
>
> Hopefully, this clarifies why Red Hat does not make statements about
> specific patents.
>
> *****
>
> Now, with that said:
>
> ffmpeg continues to be unacceptable for Fedora due to legal concerns.
>
> I apologize for any inconvenience this causes you.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tom Callaway, Fedora Legal
>
> P.S. I Am Not A Lawyer. Nothing in the above email should be considered
> legal advice. I consult regularly with Red Hat Legal, who are lawyers.
>
> P.P.S. I don't think Debian accounts for patents in any meaningful way
> when considering which software can be included in their repositories,
> only copyright licensing.
>
> Notes:
>
> (1) Not a real patent. Not a real statement of review of non-real patent.
> (2) 2009 AIPLA Economic Survey at pp. 138 to 141.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20100601/ec6404e8/attachment-0001.html