On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 15:20, Adam Williamson wrote: > 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. :)
Sorry, clarification - the fonts come as individual .exe files. It's quite clear from the EULA that accompanied them that it's perfectly legal to put those files on any freely-downloadable source, accompanied by the EULA and unmodified. It's also clear that it *wouldn't* be legal to actually include the *font files themselves* in the actual Mandrake distribution, which is I think why David is so adamant. -- adamw
