:-)

What is the precise issue you have with the proposed amended language, Tom? 
Please be specific so we aren't just appealing to the gallery here. I assert 
that the language I am proposing is a minor change that has the same effect as 
the earlier text but ensures we do not leave hostages to fortune.

Are there any others sharing Tom's concern please?

S.

/:-)


On 8 Aug 2011, at 23:59, Tom Davies wrote:

> Hi :)
> There were a reasonable amount of "+1"s to the first draft produced by 
> Florian 
> and no-one voted against it then or after the meeting.  We had just heard the 
> advice of a couple of legal people one of whom specialises in this type of 
> area.  
> 
> Regards from
> Tom :)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Norbert Thiebaud <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Mon, 8 August, 2011 18:41:05
> Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
> 
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Tom Davies <[email protected]> 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 
> [email protected]
> 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
> -- 
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
> [email protected]
> 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


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
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

Reply via email to