https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104052
--- Comment #49 from jonathon <[email protected]> ---
> We (freeColour) discussed the licensing options with an IP lawyer and came to
> the conclusion that, to guarantee the same outcome on all platforms and the
> reliability of the physical colour reference in connection with any
> programme, the ND option is the best.
Issue # 1: AFAIK, the degree to which ND permeates the work-product has not
been tested in court. Just because the creator intends for No-Derivatives to be
limited to the specific colours in this specific colour swatch in this specific
file format is no guarantee that a court will rule that way.
Distribute it within LibO, and The Document Foundation, EV is at risk of being
on the wrong side of a very expensive lawsuit.
Distribute it as a third party extension, and let users decide if the benefits
outweigh the legal risks. License the entire extension as _CC-BY-ND 4.0
(International)_.
Issue # 2: Subsets and supersets. By using an ND license, this group of colours
is effectively excluded from being used as the basis for a colour scheme ---
any colour scheme. It doesn't matter if the resulting palette is corporate
branding, or a party theme.
FWIW, I don't see the FreeColour as being the instigator of the lawsuits, but
rather, the estate and heirs of FreeColour. Neighbouring rights, greedy heirs,
sleazy lawyers, and targets with pockets deep enough to pay, but not quite deep
enough to rebuff paying the danegeld.
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
