Policy on BUILD_PATENTED

[Alberto Bursi]

On 11/08/20 12:42, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
>
>
> On 11/08/2020 02:30, Mauro Mozzarelli wrote:
>> On 10/08/2020 10:08, Adrian Schmutzler wrote:
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-bounces at lists.openwrt.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Mauro Mozzarelli
>>>> Sent: Montag, 10. August 2020 10:36
>>>> To: openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Policy on BUILD_PATENTED
>>>>
>>>> On 09/08/2020 12:44, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>>>> Mauro Mozzarelli <mauro at ezplanet.org> writes:
>>>>>> On 09/08/2020 03:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe OpenWrt should not even *consider* placing its umbrella
>>>>>>> organization(s) -- which are based on the U.S. -- in legal risk
>>>>>>> without at least contacting them first and getting their approval.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone asked SPI about it yet?
>>>>>> Who/What are these "umbrella" organizations? What is their
>>>>>> relationship with OpenWrt?
>>>>> This is answered by the FAQ:
>>>>> https://openwrt.org/faq/general
>>>>>
>>>>>> And what is the "legal risk"?
>>>>> I guess that's the question you should ask the SPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a technical or a political discussion.  It's about not
>>>>> putting your friends at unnecessary risk, even if they happen to live
>>>>> under some regime you don't like or respect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bjørn
>>>> Although I respect other's opinions and rules, I do not think it is 
>>>> right to limit
>>>> everyone's freedom, just to appease some.
>>> That's why we allow you to use BUILD_PATENTED and not just remove 
>>> that stuff entirely.
>>>
>>>> If there is a minority who is unable to use parts of this software, 
>>>> we can make
>>>> it easy for that minority to be able to strip those software 
>>>> components (or
>>>> they can propose and implement changes that achieve that 
>>>> themselves), but
>>>> in no way limit or prevent everyone from making use of it.
>>> But still, OpenWrt as a project/organization in embedded in an 
>>> environment it has to care about.
>>> And that of course includes caring about the interests of important 
>>> stakeholders (or at least ask them about those), and not make our 
>>> decisions based on how we would like the world to be.
>>>
>>> I think Bjørn put that in a nutshell nicely.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Adrian
>>
>> Citizens of the European Union are major contributors to OpenWrt and 
>> other Open Source projects, The European Union, after several years 
>> of debate. listened to its citizens, not corporations, and has put 
>> into law that freedom from software patents that allows us all to 
>> contribute to the community without fear of litigation nor 
>> constraints imposed from monopolistic organizations.
>>
>> The EU and its citizens are too important stakeholders. EU law, and 
>> EU citizens' will must too be respected.
>>
>
> I'm not a contributor or serious user so take my words with as much 
> salt as you please, but I think it is worth noting that decisions like 
> this play a big part in establishing what is considered normal.
>
> The unlicensed use of cryptography is strictly illegal in countries 
> such as Iran and Cuba, but I know of no FOSS project which even 
> considers forgoing cryptography in order to comply with such rules.


Afaik the main problem is just the USA and its litigation-friendly legal 
system that could allow someone to hurt OpenWrt infrastructure in USA 
(like the SPI as others mentioned).

OpenWrt has no infrastructure in Cuba or Iran or even China so if we are 
violating their regulations there is nothing they can do about it.

-Alberto