On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 18:43, 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.
What do you mean, unlicensed? They're still under exactly the same license they were under when they were distributed on Microsoft's site. Just because Microsoft happens to have stopped distributing them on its own website doesn't change the licensing situation one iota. > 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 Technical point - they didn't develop most of these fonts. They licensed them, they were already in existence. I believe only two or three were actually created in-house at Microsoft, including Comic Sans. > 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. The license prohibits the distribution OF THE FONTS in a package that's sold for profit. This description doesn't fit the vast majority of copies of Mandrake that exist, and furthermore it's not the fonts that would be shipped. The license applies to the fonts, not to anything else. > > 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. I don't believe this has been proven at all, let alone sufficiently proven. > 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 think it would be a debatable point which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. > > 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. What does Microsoft have to gain from putting Mandrake, specifically, out of business? I don't see anything at all. And they have a lot to lose, namely, absolutely atrocious press. A significant proportion of the entire industry press would be down on them like a ton of bricks for such an action. > 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? They didn't only provide them as .exes, as someone has pointed out. They also provided them as StuffIt-compressed files to be used (freely) on MacOS, a competing operating system. Microsoft removed the fonts because virtually everyone on Earth has them now anyway... > 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. I think there's a balance to be struck here. If you're TOO timid, you can't do anything; the harder you look at all *sorts* of software (image compression, data compression, file formats, the works) the easier it gets to see lawyers lurking in every corner, and then you're hamstrung and don't produce anything. Sure, you can recklessly put yourself in too much danger of legal exposure, but equally you shouldn't be too timid or you can't do *anything*. > > 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. Microsoft has historically been proven to be *incredibly* short-sighted. It knew (at high level) virtually nothing at all about open source and Linux until the latter days of the dot.com boom. Hell, Microsoft changes its overall strategy massively every five years or so. This is hilariously inefficient. Microsoft has a rotten corporate culture, it only survives in the position it does because of its two massive entrenched monopolies on operating systems and office software. It hasn't done anything remotely innovative that has succeeded since designing Windows and Office. > 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. Because it would be defending an utterly absurd position. The distribution of the fonts in unmodified form is clearly permitted under the terms of the license. The aiding of their downloading is clearly not infringing anyone's rights to anything at all. > > 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? No, the reason for that has already been stated by someone else in this thread. Note that they have done nothing at all to impede the subsequent distribution of these fonts on a multitude of websites. It'd be trivial to shut down corefonts.sf.net if Microsoft wanted to, by your argument, but it hasn't. > > 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. See argument about the provision of the fonts in Mac format. > > 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? Because I don't represent Mandrake, and it would be presumptuous to do so. -- adamw
