On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 12:15:59PM +0100, Warly wrote: > I do not know to what extend providing a way to do something that can > be illegal can be punished. > > e.g. providing a computer, or linux, even wihtout illegal components > does not prevent you copying DVD or hacking army internal network. > > However the difference lays in to what extend we make this easy. > > IANAL but at some point I guess than there is no real difference in a > trial between providing microsof fonts, or providing a one click > feature to get them. > > As a consequence, I do not favor putting it in contribs, however if > any have more clues about that, comments are welcome.
Sure I'd be happy to elaborate further on the legal situation with regards to this. It is important to note a couple of facts before I go into my analysis. Remember this section is not analysis just the facts. * It *IS* legal to distribute these fonts provided that each copy is a "true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA." And additionally that it is done on a not-for-profit basis. You can take a look at the EULA that applies to these fonts (with the exception of the Tahoma font which is different and not included in the RPM by default due to these licensing differences) here: http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/eula.htm There is also an FAQ related to the license that was on Microsoft's home page previously that clarifies their position on distribution in plain english: http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/faq8.htm * Microsoft has removed the fonts from their site on October 25th, 2002. This however does not change their license agreement that allows distribution. * The sourceforge SRPM project has been up on sourceforge since August 22nd 2001. * The SRPM hosted at sourceforge has gained a significant amount of press, especially after Microsoft removed the fonts from their site. Now onto some analysis of the situation: First off I would not have done this if I thought in anyway it was illegal. It is indeed walking the fine line of their licensing agreement. However, I believe it is walking inside the line. I live in the Seattle area. It would be trivial for Microsoft to bring action against me. So I have every reason to be very careful about what I do here. Second, The sourceforge project has been there long enough to gain their attention, and has gained enough press attention to attract their attention. A simple DMCA notification claiming a copyright violation would be the end of the fonts (right or wrong). It would be unlikely anyone would fight them on this. The fonts would simply move underground. Third, I seriously doubt that Microsoft cares if we are using these fonts. They put them up in archives readable to Macintosh computers and Windows computers. They provided a license agreement that is likely as free as their lawyers have ever done. Fact is they wanted these fonts to be established as an Internet standard and distributed to the masses. I seriously doubt that the removal of the fonts from their website had anything to do with Linux. The two core platforms Microsoft cares about are Windows and the Macintosh. Internet Explorer is the predominant browser on both of these platforms, which the fonts now come with. Additionally, IE is preinstalled on virtually all Windows and Macintosh computers now, with these fonts. There was no reason to continue to distribute the fonts, users already have them if they had a modern system. Fourth, Their license agreement allows installation and use of an unlimited number of copies. It does not specify use on what operating system. It does not specify what software or procedures you must follow to install. Essentially all I have done is made an easy to use installer to do so on Linux (in particular Mandrake). Mandrake currently ships several things that walk the fine line of licensing. Perfect example of this is the mp3 decoders included in the distribution. It is unclear if Mandrake should have to pay royalties on every CD it ships (though I think free downloads it is clear that they would not). Yet, mp3 decoders are shipped in main. And yet in this case we aren't even talking about main. We are talking about contrib. Which for most packages means it would never get included on a CD. IMHO this makes the legal position on this far better off than the legal position on a bunch of other stuff you ship. If you decide you'd rather not include it that's fine. But show us the courtesy of considering it and explaining your rationale for not placing the package in contribs in light of the facts. -- 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
