This thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. Let's not forget that we are talking about Microsoft's copyrighted binaries - it's much more serious than patent issues that Mandrake constantly faces. If Mandrake ships freetype without the bytecode interpreter because it MIGHT be a patent violation, I don't see how they can ship packages that facilitate installing unlicensed Microsoft fonts.
On Thursday 28 November 2002 11:36 am, Adam Williamson wrote: > I just don't think this is either accurate or true, and I worry about > the quality of Mandrake's legal advice. I thnik Mandrake is being way, > way too timid in this case. It's a nice popular myth that big companies > can force small ones into ruinous trials at the drop of a hat, and it's > certainly true in some contexts, but I don't think it's true in this > context at all. This IS serious. Don't forget that you are working with Microsoft's copyrighted binary programs (fonts are fairly complex programs, by the way). They paid quite a bit of money to develop those, and I am sure that they would not appreciate Mandrake using their work for free without permission. Their license SPECIFICALLY prohibits using their fonts as value-add. That is exactly what you are saying Mandrake should use them for. > Whether the difference is immediately obvious or not is > simply not an issue, because it can easily be explained. The legal > system is sophisticated enough to draw a distinction between supplying > the source code for a patent-infringing application (not illegal) and > supplying a compiled binary of that source code (illegal), it's > certainly sophisticated enough to draw a distinction between a package > which includes some material and one which doesn't. The court system has consistently ruled that supplying links to such infringing binaries is also illegal. Basically, they look at INTENT: source code can be treated as a description of an algorithm, but if you have a source RPM that is designed to be compiled into binary code that is a different story. The same thing with Microsoft fonts. Do you think that supplying the source code to LAME on the CD and compiling it during installation would be more legal than just including the binary? I don't think so. > I can't see any > competent lawyer seeing a snowball's chance in hell of a positive > outcome in an action against such a script, because such a script has > absolutely rock-solid foundations. I really can't see such a case being > pursued under the circumstances, because Microsoft would have absolutely > nothing to gain. Let's not flatter ourselves here, Microsoft couldn't > really give a damn about Mandrake - it wouldn't even care too much about > putting Mandrake out of business, because it doesn't see Mandrake as a > competitor. Microsoft has quite a bit to gain from pulling major Linux companies out of business. Let's not delude ourselves here. They want people to THINK they don't care about Mandrake, but they really do care. Also, failing to protect your patents or software from being copied is a good way to lose control of that software. That's why Microsoft removed their fonts from the website they used to be on. Why do you think they put them in a click-wrap .exe file in the first place -- to let people use them freely? Finally, you have to understand that a mere filing of a lawsuit is enough to put Mandrake out of business. They would have to hire a lawyer, send him to whereever the lawsuit gets filed, and defend themselves. That costs far more cash than Mandrake has to spare. Obviously, an overly cautious policy is better than a lax one. > Microsoft is too short-sighted to consider a relatively > small, desktop-directed (this is the perception of Mandrake) distro as a > threat. Microsoft's perceived threats in the Linux arena are IBM, Red > Hat and to a lesser extent UnitedLinux. Given that an action against > Mandrake would be utterly unlikely to succeed, would generate an > avalanche of bad press for Microsoft, and would give them absolutely no > positive benefit, I can't see it happening. 4 words: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR ENEMY. Microsoft is neither retarded nor short-sighted. Don't treat them as such. Also, I don't see how protecting your copyrighted content is going to generate bad press. You could use the same argument to justify including pirated warez in the distribution (or links to such). In both cases, you are facilitating copyright infringement. > Hell, I wouldn't even bet > against the possibility that, if someone actually *ASKED* Microsoft, > they'd expressly say it was OK to include a download script for their > web fonts. Is that why they removed them from public access a few months ago? > As someone pointed out, Microsoft WANTED those fonts > distributed across the web, it wasn't trying to restrain their > distribution at all. See above. The only reason they were on the web in the first place is because Microsoft wanted every windows user to have those fonts. Not for competitors such as Mandrake. That's why they removed them from the website. > I'm sure Mandrakesoft have made their decision, I > simply believe they're making a mistake and it's legitimate to continue > to point out that mistake in the hope this will be considered more > rationally and not in such a climate of fear at a later date. If you are dealing with other people's proprietary software, it's a good policy to exercise caution. If you think Microsoft wants Mandrake to have these fonts, why don't you email them and ask for express permission to do so? -- -- Igor
