On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 01:47:05PM -0600, Igor Izyumin wrote: > 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.
Well if Crossover isn't enough to get Microsoft to chase them down them putting it in contrib is even less of a risk. > 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. If it's not Mandrake's responsiblity then why won't they put my package in contrib? Mandrake obviously isn't making my package. > 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. That's would be a nice argument. *IF* *AND* *ONLY* *IF* they were already on the war path with other people that were doing the same thing. They aren't. > 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. Guess we better take RPM out of Mandrake along with all the other software Mandrake's competitors have written that Mandrake has added to their distribution. Your argument is specious. What matters is the license. Not who wrote it. > 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. And yet they have done neither to any of the other people doing similar things. Humm yeah. If Microsoft would want to kill anyone it would be Codeweavers. Codeweavers makes a product that eases the transition from Microsoft Operating Systems to Linux. This is a much bigger threat to them than just Mandrake. There are dozens of distros. But there is only one crossover that makes it as easy and seamless to use plugins from Windows. > 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. Yet another absurd comparision. > This has nothing to do with DMCA, by the way. Plain old copyright law. It has everything to do with the DMCA. The DMCA governs how you are required to provide notice to people making digital content available via the internet that violates your copyrights. Of course you'd know that if you'd have actually read the law. > 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. It's illegal because you wouldn't have a license to distribute it. Now who's comparing apples and oranges? > 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. Click wrap prompt is never mentioned in the license. And the exes are just self extracting cab files. No hacking involved. If extracting compressed data from a self extracting file is considered hacking we better remove unzip from the distro. > 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 That's the first citation of abuse as the reason. And I've seen no source for where they got that. Besides... it's irrelevent if they are on their site or not. > Unless you are prepared to pay for a lawyer to validate that claim, you should > not make such assertions. We are forced to interperet licenses everyday. But fine. On Monday when all the lawyers are back I'll pay a lawyer the $800 it'll cost me to prove to you that I'm not violating their license. But what the hell if it'll shut up all you folk that can't read a very simple license agreement it'll be worth the money. > 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. Not everything a commercial entity does has commercial purposes. Besides Mandrake already distributes a wrapper that downloads and installs the fonts (Crossover). Their liability with my rpm is at a minimum no different with my package than it is with crossover. However, I think it's less. Crossover clearly enables people to violate the Windows Media Player license and is clearly a commercial application, requiring you to pay the $25 to continue using it. > 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. Obviously you haven't been paying attention: http://ben.reser.org/corefonts/ -- 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
