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. :)
Bitter experience suggests that the efficacy of a lawyer is not so much
determined by his or her command of a body of legal knowledge and
precedent but moreso by his or her proclivity to glibly and agressively
lie without compunction. There is no way to guarantee the outcome in a
court, especially when you are dealing with those who have demonstrated
their willingness and ability to influence the legislative and judicial
processes with vast resources. Firm beliefs, even convictions, in what
is right and what is wrong wield (perhaps increasingly) little infuence
in a court of 'law'.
