[mythtv-users] Trademark Issue with "Packages - MythTV Official Wiki" and the repository is questionable for Debian users

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Michael T. Dean <mtdean at thirdcontact.com> wrote:
> .... (That said, my interpretation of the official Debian
> Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Debian
> Position on Software Patents is that none of them should be allowed to be
> officially hosted in the Debian repository, even in the non-free area.
> IMHO, if they can't host libdvdcss--due to patent/licensing violation--they
> shouldn't be able to host any software that decodes MP3 and MPEG-2 and
> MPEG-4 and ..., but hey, I'm no lawyer.)

Never let it be said that ethics can not be bent when
personal desires (and/or relevancy) is on the line.....

It is generally accepted that codecs are a patent
minefield.  For simple values, any codec you want
to use has someone claiming a patent on it (in
some cases, some company is paying the license
(Cisco for H.264 for video conferencing when using
their binary for example) making it "free to use" for
the approved purpose but it is still patented).

At one point, Debian removed the patented codecs
from their core FFMpeg distribution (neutering it to the
point of irrelevance), which resulted in an "unofficial"
multimedia repository that is not part of the core
that was subject to the most rigorous interpretations.
It is a very fine line that Debian itself did not cross.
[FD: I have not carefully followed the situation in Debian
for years; they may have changed what they do in this
regard, and certainly some patents have expired over
the years.]

And more than one org (where org includes major,
for profit, companies) use the "wink wink", "nudge
nudge" approach to pointing to packages hosted
by others willing to accept the potential liability (or
sometimes ignorant of their potential liability), or
distribute only sources which cannot (based on
some existing case law) itself be infringing [I would
have to go back to the reasoning, but I seem to recall
it had to do with the idea/descriptive/expressive part
(source/algorithm) which by law must be fully disclosed
and one is free to examine vs an actual
implementation/instantiation (an executable) which
could be an infringement under patent law].

Individuals will sometimes choose to take advantage
of the lack of enforcement by many IP owners of
their rights for individual violations. That is a risk/benefit
trade-off individuals may choose to take on ("If you do
not do the time, you did not do the crime").  And it
is true that the holders of the IP mostly go after the
bulk abuses (public distribution) where infringement
is often easier to show (the site states "downloaded
over 10,000 times!"), and where there is potential
money (or press) to be made.  Sometimes it is the
principal, but more often it is a strategic business
decision as to whom one decides to sue and when
(torpedoes away!).  And while some patents should
never have been issued in the first place, once they
are issued they are presumed valid and enforceable.

Given that as I live in the US, and the US is a very
litigious society that does enforce IP rights, I would
never knowingly be part of any organization that
provided binaries that included any known patented
IP that could not show me that they hold (and I would
be covered by) appropriate Professional Liability
Insurance, Directors and Officers Insurance, and
Product Liability Insurance in order to protect my
ass(ets).  It just takes one letter from the IP holders
lawyer requesting payment from you (personally)
to ruin your day (and in the US, it is not unknown to
sue everyone to find the one that has the deepest
pockets, or ability to pay (and do not forget the
lawyers fees, even if you win)).  Your lawyers advice
regarding the downside risks, and your eventual
decision of which of those risks to accept may be
different than mine.

Gary