Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:30:24PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:02:06AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Fair enough. But on the other hand, I guess SPI has to decide whether
> > > *it* wants to take up any risks and stand up for whatever code it
> > > accepted. What happens if some company decides they have a patent on
> > > something and tries to sue us into oblivion?
> >
> > We say we didn't know and remove the code ?
>
> Well, we can do that once or twice. But assume that the threat is really
> questionable (like, a trivial patent or a so-called DMCA-violation) but

We have to take care about not letting patent or DMCA violations we know
about in, or something such, or move these to free repositories outside
the US or whatever. If we act in good faith, and respond aprprietely to
a cease-and-desist move or whatever, there is nothing that whoever is
going to sue us can do. After all, we are no patent lawyers.

There was also an jurisprudence or whatever saying that you cannot
prosecute people that didn't know they were violating patents.

> they have more lawyers than we do? I thought the purpose of assigning
> copyright is so that the organisation that holds up the transferred
> copyright can easier cope with threats. If we just drop any code that
> makes problems, I could imagine that not many people will see the point
> in assigning copyrights to us.

Mmm, that is a different issue.

> So my point rather was: Do we promote that we'll fight for people
> willing to assign copyrights, provided that we think the cause is just?
> Do we have the resources for this?

Friendly,

Sven Luther