Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:20:21AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 04:30:26PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Kenshi Muto wrote:
> > > At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,
> > > Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > > Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
> > > > =====================================
>
> > > > An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/>.
>
> > > > I am preparing the second revision of the current stable Debian
> > > > distribution (woody) which will probably be released soon. This
> > > > report is to allow people to comment on it and intervene whenever
> > > > this is required.
>
> > > > If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and
> > > > explain why these things should be handled differently. There is
> > > > still time to reconsider.
>
> > > Please, please wait.
> > > Before you release r2, we must solve Japanese Watanabe font problem.
> > > See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html
>
> > If I understood you correctly, you want me to remove these packages:
>
> > ttf-kochi-mincho
> > ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
> > ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
> > watanabe-vfont
> > ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt)
> > ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt)
>
> > from the stable distribution due to license problems, right?
>
> > That is possible.
>
> I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
> problems with these fonts.
>
> The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,
This does not sound like something the real lawyer reviewed.
> seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
> books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
> these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
> have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent.
I agree.
> Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
> in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
> not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
> legal counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but
> there are other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides
> the letter of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the
> parties' pockets.
If the party who is using HITACHI font is commercial entity, they may
likely to pay some money to avoid costly litigation if settlement
includes no actual financial impact. It does not even say how much they
gained.
I do not think the Japanese law is created in a much different manner.
> I don't believe that Debian should ingratiate itself to corporations who
> throw their weight around to carve out intellectual property without the
> sanction of the courts. Unless and until Hitachi is taking legal action
> against our distributors or users in Japan, I think Debian ought to
> ignore these apparently baseless claims.
I agree.
One question to ask is "is this useful fonts?" If not, we have totally
different ground to remove this package based on uselessness :-)
If we ever remeve this package, reason should not be "We must do this
because HITACH said so". That is dangerous path.
Osamu
Reply to: