On Friday 29 November 2002 01:36 am, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 16:23, David Walser wrote:
> > The difference between some
> > script that DLs them at install time and an RPM that
> > ships them directly is not immediately obvious to a
> > non-techie. What that means is, it's close enough for
> > Microsoft to sue, and MandrakeSoft to not be able to
> > get the case dismissed in a summary judgement. It
> > would have to go to full trial so you could explain to
> > the judge the difference between an RPM and an SRPM.
> > Full trial == $$$, money MandrakeSoft doesn't have.
> 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.
I also think that they're being too timid, however:
(1) I accept their judgement on the matter; and
(2) The stakes are very high for an optional component of the distro; and
(3) This kind of thing has been beaten to death on this very list before,
without success; and
(4) If Texstar or whoever packages it, it's only a urpmi away anyhow. Big
whoop-ti-doo, some users don't get the MS fonts. *All* of the ones I
install will, how about you?
> Whether the difference is immediately obvious or not is
> simply not an issue, because it can easily be explained.
Wrong. Well, wrong focus. It _can_ be easily explained, but what will happen
should this be pressed IRL is that MandrakeSoft's summary dismissal will be
rejected (yes, it is simple, but it has consequences and so must be judged
upon), Microsoft will drag it out and complicate it in court as much as
possible to exhaust if not destroy MandrakeSoft.
Ask yourself if Trey would turn down an opportunity to destroy a Linux
distributor while simultaneously portraying them as a thief of intellectual
property. It's nearly Christmas: he'd think Santa had already arrived early!
This is the kind of corporate back-knifing he has specialised in over the
years.
> 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.
Wrong.
> 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.
Wrong. Microsoft have taken the trouble to try to squash some very small
competitors (e.g. Blue Mountain Greeting Cards) in their time. I would expect
them to wait for the outcome of their EU trial before moving, but after that
throw caution to the wind.
> Microsoft's perceived threats in the Linux arena are IBM, Red
> Hat and to a lesser extent UnitedLinux.
No. Microsoft's perceived threats are, and I can't emphasise this point
enough, *EVERYBODY*ELSE*. No exceptions. When Microserfs scream `KILL THEM!'
during their rallies, they're referring to all of their competitors.
> would generate an avalanche of bad press for Microsoft,
Not necessarily so. In fact, `Linux Distributor Sued for Bundling Microsoft
Fonts' is almost certainly, from Microsoft's PoV, good press.
> 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.
That, however, makes sense. Have any of the collective Drakes actually asked
Microsoft about this? A letter granting permission would certainly get a
summary dismissal, and a refusal would be enlightening too.
> As someone pointed out, Microsoft WANTED those fonts
> distributed across the web, it wasn't trying to restrain their
> distribution at all.
Not true. If they weren't trying to restrict distribution, they would simply
have made them Freeware or BSD, no muttering about unchanged distribution.
They distributed them as EXEs, remember, not TTFs or even ZIPs.
Even if what you said here was true, that was then, this is now. It would be
very good tactics for Microsoft to have millions of websites out there that
render `correctly' using their software and poorly using anything else.
That's a core purpose of IE, after all.
> 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.
I believe that your suggestion about asking them is a good one, otherwise it's
beating a dead horse.
I have another suggestion, too. Surely Microsoft aren't the only company on
the web who have ever distributed good-quality fonts for free? People seem to
be as stuck on that idea - even here - as the general public are on the
concept of there being something besides Windows to install on a PC.
How about including a wrapper that fetches some safer high-quality fonts? How
about the wrapper (or a different one) fetching not-so-quality lookalike
fonts that give the same appearance and would be good enough for at least 95%
of users out there?
Cheers; Leon
