[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: OpenSSL and ECC patents (was Re: Mesa in F37- vaapi support disabled for h264/h265/vc1)
From:       drago01 <drago01 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2022-09-29 20:37:19
Message-ID: CAMqY-FeBXWzVv08+nF-9t4qPC-7AjCuRErBtSM+38E=8PeLGEQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On Wednesday, September 28, 2022, Clemens Lang <cllang@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Michael J Gruber <mjg@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> Understanding is helped greatly by communication, though. Legal answers
>> such as "We can not" do not further this understanding, and "We can not
>> and we can not tell you why" is not much better, but these are the typical
>> answer we get, not even with a "sorry, but we can't". Obviously, these
>> legal questions are difficult to explain, but it can't be true that each
>> such case is under a "gag order".
>>
>
> A lawyer at a previous employer told me that explanations of such decisions
> can be used against you in court. Presumably, this also applies here.


That's sounds overlay paranoid. How can an explanation on why you are *not*
doing something be used against you in court? I can get why "we don't think
that patent XYZ applies so this is fine to ship" is problematic, but the
other way around just doesn't make sense.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<br><br>On Wednesday, September 28, 2022, Clemens Lang &lt;<a \
href="mailto:cllang@redhat.com">cllang@redhat.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br>
Michael J Gruber &lt;<a href="mailto:mjg@fedoraproject.org" \
target="_blank">mjg@fedoraproject.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br> <br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> Understanding is helped greatly by communication, though. \
Legal answers<br> such as &quot;We can not&quot; do not further this understanding, \
and &quot;We can not<br> and we can not tell you why&quot; is not much better, but \
these are the typical<br> answer we get, not even with a &quot;sorry, but we \
can&#39;t&quot;. Obviously, these<br> legal questions are difficult to explain, but \
it can&#39;t be true that each<br> such case is under a &quot;gag order".<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A lawyer at a previous employer told me that explanations of such decisions<br>
can be used against you in court. Presumably, this also applies \
here.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That&#39;s sounds overlay paranoid. How can an \
explanation on why you are *not* doing something be used against you in court? I can \
get why &quot;we don&#39;t think that patent XYZ applies so this is fine to \
ship&quot; is problematic, but the other way around just doesn&#39;t make sense.  \
</div>


[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]