On Thursday 28 November 2002 12:56 pm, Ben Reser wrote: > 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.
I am not a lawyer, and I will not pretend that I understand what "for profit" means in the context of this license. In this case, I am assuming this could mean "adding value to another product or service". Even putting it in contribs adds value to Mandrake's products (we wouldn't be having this discussion otherwise). There is a definite potential for a lawsuit here. > 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. Yes, they would. Crossover is a third-party product and as such is not Mandrake's responsibility. Its primary purpose is not to install the fonts, but to run the plugins. Furthermore, crossover uses an unaltered form of their executable that presents the EULA exactly as it was originally -- in Microsoft's click-wrap. > 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. You could say that LAME is the issue of interpreting a patent. > There is no clause in copyright law about failing to protect your > copyright. That only applies to trademark and patent law. Yes, but if Microsoft later tries to sue somebody for violating the copyright/EULA for their software, they would have a much easier case if they showed that they consistently prosecute such offenses. > 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 obviously doesn't want their competitors to use the fonts. Mandrake is one of their competitors. Incorporating your competitor's software into your product, even indirectly, is a good way to get sued. Don't delude yourself. They could file a lawsuit if they felt like it. Cease and desist is just a nicer way to stop the violation. I don't think copyright laws say that you have to first send a threatening letter to the offender. There was a story recently about some people who uncapped their cable modems. Did they get a nice little letter telling them to stop stealing service? No, they just got an FBI visit and had their stuff confiscated. This has nothing to do with DMCA, by the way. Plain old copyright law. > 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*. If I distribute Photoshop for free, it's still illegal. Besides, Microsoft doesn't actually have to win the lawsuit to put Mandrake out of business. They have good enough lawyers that Mandrake would not be able to get the lawsuit dismissed easily. > So worse case scenario is that they throw their weight around a bit to > bully us into doing what they want. More like put Mandrake out of business. > 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. They are not distributing the fonts anymore. Their page says that they ended that program. Providing a script that downloads and installs those particular fonts (they are in .exes so you have to do hacking) is about the same as just packaging the fonts in an rpm. The user also does not get the click-wrap prompt. > > > 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). I don't think that bandwidth costs were the issue here. Microsoft said they removed them due to abuse: http://www.linuxdevices.com/links/LK2586010557.html > > 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. Unless you are prepared to pay for a lawyer to validate that claim, you should not make such assertions. Their license does not seem to permit distributing fonts for commercial purposes, and Mandrake is most certainly a for-profit company. It's a pretty grey area, and only a qualified legal professional can determine these things. I am sure that any lawyer would advise you to stay away from these fonts as much as possible. It's the best way to avoid getting sued. Anyway, if you are so sure that your stuff does not violate anything, put it on your own website right next to a copy of DeCSS or find someone who can tolerate that liability. I don't understand why you are trying to impose the liability on Mandrake. -- -- Igor
