On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Tom Davies <tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Hi :) > I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a > risk > in a way that could NOT be fix easily & quickly would be really dumb. It is > an > easily avoidable risk.
I think it is unnecessary to worry about fabricated convoluted legal scenario without precedent. > > > The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) > does > not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Did you pool the steering committee member individually ? what basis do you have to claim that just _one person_ think that this legal angle to force a POV is a strawman ? > Indeed, there was a meeting > that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. > There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the > perceived > risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be > avoided by using Gnu&Linux if easily possible. using Linux and/or Gnu does not avoid the alleged risk. Neither own the copyright on icons that would be displayed in a screen-shoot. > > > With Gnu&Linux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation > Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards > professionally > consistent documentation. Yes the 'consistent' argument is indeed valid... but the so-called legal risk is a straw man > The licensing of Gnu&Linux tends to be copy-left > allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows > Eula is very restrictive The Eula could demand that you give away your first born child, that would still not make that the Law. actually the French version of the EULA for Windows 7 Basic, Section 27, spell out clearly that Eula does not trump the Law of the Land. > and people in the discussion even highlighted > paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would > make > them useful for documentation would be a violation. > > There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered > by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could > 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or > 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves Apparently we don't even need Microsoft to conduct FUD campaign, we do just fine on our own :-( > The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was > produced using non-Windows screen-shots. > > > > In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS > for saving data. What patent do screen-shoots infringe ? And how did you get access to confidential settlement terms ? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html : "Specific financial terms were not disclosed. " [snip irrelevant US-patent non-sens ] > > Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of > types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat > their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner? Or just easily not enocurage those that manufacture brick wall in their path. Norbert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
