On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 15:11, Austin Acton wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 06:15, Warly wrote: > > IANAL but at some point I guess than there is no real difference in a > > trial between providing microsof fonts, or providing a one click > > feature to get them. > > > > As a consequence, I do not favor putting it in contribs, however if > > any have more clues about that, comments are welcome. > > Why can't we have a resident lawyer on this list? > Is there not a single lawyer in the world who is also a mandrake > enthusiast? > Austin
There clearly is a difference. Sure, there isn't in terms of common sense, but then the law has never worked on the grounds of common sense (which is why it's fine to distribute the LAME source code, but not a compiled version...) There's absolutely nothing illegal about a wrapper script that downloads and unpackages an unmodified version of the Microsoft .cab file containing the Microsoft web fonts. Period. It's that simple. If that wrapper script happens to be in the form of an urpmi-compatible source RPM, it makes no difference. It's still just a script, it contains nothing at all over which Microsoft has any legal right, it's completely unimpeachable. As would be placing an unmodified copy of the .cab file on a Mandrakesoft or PLF server. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure I'm right. :) -- adamw
