On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 12:43:38PM -0600, Igor Izyumin wrote: > 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.
Go read the license again. They are licensed... > 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. It prohibits distribution for profit. Including the package in contrib and making sure it never gets on the CDs doesn't count as for profit. The words value add never occur in the license. Further Mandrake already ships crossover plugin's demo which will happily download and install the fonts on their commercial CDs. So actually they wouldn't be increasing their exposure to a lawsuit by placing them in contribs. > 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. This is not the same thing at all. LAME is a patent issue. This is a matter of interpreting a license agreement. The license agreement from Microsoft includes the right to install and use on an unlimited number of computers. It Fraunhaufer made a similar licensing of their patent, I'm sure we would be including LAME without even thinking about it. > 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? There is no clause in copyright law about failing to protect your copyright. That only applies to trademark and patent law. > 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. More than likely if Microsoft were to take any action (which is highly improbably, about as likely as Fraunhaufer going after them for mp3 decoders), they would simply send a cease and decist letter / DMCA copyright violation notice. Mandrake would take the package off the mirrors. End of story. Microsoft would have little to gain take this to court. Copyright law civil penalties are based upon real damages. Real damages from a font that is distributed for free would be well umm *ZERO*. So worse case scenario is that they throw their weight around a bit to bully us into doing what they want. > 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. Suing someone for providing a script that downloads and installs fonts you are distributing for free would. You can count on it. This is not warez. This is not pirated software. > Is that why they removed them from public access a few months ago? Because they didn't want to pay the bandwidth bill for people downloading something that they don't need (they assume everyone already has them). > 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 guess that's why they shipped them in Macintosh formats too. Guess they like helping out Apple users. > 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? Because they already have granted such permission. That's the point of the license agreement. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "If you're not making any mistakes, you're flat out not trying hard enough." - Jim Nichols
