FreeType2 Patent Violation?
randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Nov 26 16:38:32 PST 2005
I went to fix the bug about the poorly written description of our
enabling of the Bytecode Interpreter in the FreeType2 instructions.
So, to get some background, I visited
Now I'm sure this issue has come up a long time ago (as I don't
remember any discussion since I've been involved with (B)LFS) and
it was determined that our enabling of the Bytecode Interpreter
does *NOT* violate Apple's patents.
But I'm not so sure about that. I feel our enabling of the
Bytecode Interpreter in the FreeType2 source *is* a violation of
Perhaps we can all visit this issue again and clarify it for me
how we are *not* in violation.
I understand we are not *distributing* code that includes the
enabling of the Interpreter, but having the instruction in the
book as the recommended default installation seems in violation.
Perhaps I'm just overly concerned. I would appreciate it if some
of you that remember previous conversation about this could relay
what you remember. I searched the archives, but didn't really find
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 220.127.116.11.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
18:26:00 up 63 days, 3:50, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.28, 0.47
More information about the blfs-dev