pacjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish · 7 months agoI absolutely love VideoLAN's stance regarding patentslemmy.dbzer0.comimagemessage-square65fedilinkarrow-up11.05Karrow-down111
arrow-up11.04Karrow-down1imageI absolutely love VideoLAN's stance regarding patentslemmy.dbzer0.compacjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish · 7 months agomessage-square65fedilink
minus-squareTheGalacticVoid@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·7 months agoWho the heck thought these should’ve been approved and why?
minus-squarewahming@monyet.cclinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21·7 months agoThat’s the issue with software patents. Everything is obvious at a certain level of knowledge
minus-squarelad@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·7 months agoAlso if my understanding of US patents is correct (chances are low, but still) you can use sha1 instead of md5 and change some other minor thing and it’ll not infringe that patent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
deleted by creator
Who the heck thought these should’ve been approved and why?
That’s the issue with software patents. Everything is obvious at a certain level of knowledge
Also if my understanding of US patents is correct (chances are low, but still) you can use sha1 instead of md5 and change some other minor thing and it’ll not infringe that patent ¯\_(ツ)_/¯