On Sun, 2011-07-10 at 00:39 +0200, Bernhard Dippold wrote:
> > extreme, I would suggest also seeking counsel from another specialist
> > if TDF wishes to pursue this path, perhaps from SFLC.
We are not (as a project) a client of the SFLC. Furthermore, the SFLC
have a very large number of topics on their plate. The "just ask a
lawyer" motif is often just a stalling tactic - the advice a lawyer can
give will often be a nuanced one, and that advice inevitably cannot be
published. So, ultimately, I guess the SC would need to make a call on
this in a private session if it was asked to.
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 16:52 +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
> While caution is certainly important, until there's a concrete
> example of any one of those EULAs posing a concrete problem
> I'd suggest we don't have one.
Here I agree; clearly respecting the EULA is mandatory, and obviously
fair-use and other considerations give very broad rights; pragmatically
it seems that this is a non-problem, and that the whole software
industry (including openoffice.org) routinely publishes screenshots from
windows machines. OpenOffice.org gets even more risque like this:
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/1.1/images/ms_office_compatibility.jpg
which I don't recommend ;-) so IMHO the existing practise seems to
suggest that this is un-controversial & non-problematic.
Personally, I would prefer all our screenshots to be taken on Linux
because I love to support free platforms, but Italo is right - we need
to make clear that we work well on Windows too, one convincing way to do
that is clearly with screenshots.
At least that's my 2 cents,
ATB,
Michael.
--
[email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
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
