Re: Software implementing patented techniques

Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Tue, 10 Feb 2026 17:23:42 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Andrius Merkys <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2026-02-10 13:18, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 at 12:39:55 +0200, Andrius Merkys wrote:
>>> A package I am interested in, Olaf (ITP #1127469), contains
>>> [mentions of patents]
>> Please see <https://www.debian.org/legal/patent>, in particular
>> items 3 and 5.
>
> Thanks, I was not aware of this document.

Is that in effect?  Under what authority?  It looks like a random
webpage on debian.org without clear authorship or status.

My perception is that there is a lot of patent encumbered code in
Debian; for example the recent ML-KEM post-quantum crypto is covered by
patents and licensed by NIST [1].

That Debian patent policy reads out of touch with todays reality IMHO.
The defense against patent trolls in the FOSS world is today largely
based on patent non-aggression patent protection like OIN.

I like the mission of the above Debian patent policy, but either I
misunderstand it or it seems entirely unenforceable today.

In the policy manual, I only see:

   Packages must be placed in non-free if they are not compliant with
   the DFSG or are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make
   their distribution problematic.

That wording is confusing.  It isn't clear which of the following
intereprations are intented:

   Packages must be placed in non-free if they are (not compliant with
   the DFSG or are encumbered by patents) inclusive-or (other legal
   issues that make their distribution problematic).

   Packages must be placed in non-free if they are (not compliant with
   the DFSG or are encumbered by patents) exclusive-or (other legal
   issues that make their distribution problematic).

   Packages must be placed in non-free if they are not ((compliant with
   the DFSG or are encumbered by patents) inclusive-or (other legal
   issues that make their distribution problematic)).

   Packages must be placed in non-free if they are not ((compliant with
   the DFSG or are encumbered by patents) exclusive-or (other legal
   issues that make their distribution problematic)).

Or something else.  The first 'or' in the sentence could be read as
inclusive-or or exclusive-or with different meanings too.

/Simon

[1] https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography/documents/selected-algos-2022/nist-pqc-license-summary-and-excerpts.pdf
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)