Re: [OT] use of patented algorithms in the kernel ok or not?

[Stan Bubrouski <stan@ccs.neu.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1652 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-12-21 at 05:53, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > What about the obvious Kconfig option?
> > 
> > config PATENT_1234567890
> >         bool "Patent 1234567890"
> >         default n
> >         help
> >           Say Y here if you have the right to use
> >           patent 1234567890 (the foo patent). Some
> >           countries do not recognise this patent, an
> >           educational or research exemption may apply,
> >           you may be the patent holder, the patent
> >           may have expired, or you may have aquired
> >           rights via licensing. Seek legal help if you
> >           need advice concerning your rights. If unsure,
> >           say N.
> 
> I expect this was said in jest, but it would be delightful to see this
> done for real.  To the best of my knowlege it's uncharted territory,
> so perhaps what you suggest _would_ be upheld in a court of law as
> permissible?
<SNIP>

No No No No No...do you really think including code for a patented
algorithm(s) is a good idea?  You are still distributing the code and
allowing people to illegally use it in countries where they are not
allowed to.  In essence you are providing a catalyst for them to violate
a patent and making yourself and other liable along the way.  US law is
sick and fucked up, and if someone sues you for patent infringement
you're most likely fucked, because you can never have enough money to
defend yourself...for the sake of us stuck in this so-called free
country (though we can be arrested and jailed without trial?) please do
not include patented algoriths in Linux...

-sb

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]