Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:47:14PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Kenshi Muto <kmuto@debian.org>
> > > Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?
> >
> > What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.
>
> I see.
Muto-san, if what Hitachi said is all what they can for asserting their
"right", it is unconvincing and no one shall feel obligated. I think
Hitachi should find proper communication person who understands IP in
legal sense. But I think discussion went off course because we focused
on HITACHI issue too much.
> > > I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.
> >
> > It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
> > Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
> > alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
> > oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for
>
> "same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
> original author's permission.
That is called "threaft", if "glyph" is something which has exclusive
ownership permitted by the law after they put it to use for their
WORD-PROCESSOR. Also HITACHI was not actively keeping this kind thing to
happen. It has been long since then. In the sense HITACHI also
committed lack of active enforcement.
Also Debian got this as sort of innocent third party who has no binding
term signed with HITACHI.
> It is too heavy work (and I think it may be nonsense) to make Japanese
> font without any original font since Japanese font needs massive
> glyphs.
This misses important point. The amount of workload does not create IP
right automatically. HITACHI must have legally protected their right in
some way, they can not extend the fact of creation to the exclusive
right.
This may not fit your common Japanese sense, but that is the law
anywhere including Japan, as I see it.
In some cases, copyright protect them. In other, design patent (this is
US thing.) protect them. Japanese registered "Ishoo" seems like kind of
design patent but I am not a lawyer. In other case, binding contract
protect them. If it is copyright, right is automatically assigned.
Some other means requires special protocol to ensure their right. If
HITACHI did not do this and if they are suddenly claiming their right, I
say "tough luck".
HITACHI was very unclear on this RIGHT issue. I made a conscious letter
to address this point after reading their web site.
Important thing is if HITACHI wish to claim their right, they have to
make convincing argument to us. It is not us to guess where their right
comes from. The burden of proof for their right is on the HITACHI side.
I have no problem removing them if proper procedure are followed. But
using very loose claim by HITACHI as its reason is bad precedents.
> One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
> kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
> font rather than Watanabe font.
> Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
> As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
> wait to install by ftp maintainers.
Are they clearly nicer looking fonts or just an alternative?
Then you should argue that font with cleaner history makes Debian looks
good by socially responsible without damaging its functionality.
Please avoid using words such as "Debian must ...". There is no
imperative here. Just a house keeping to clean stinky socks to the
dump. Tell us you are removing ugly fonts with not-so-nice history
behind, people may consider removing from next release.
> > our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
> > infringement to present a more coherent case first.
>
> I tell history again (see
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html):
...
This is not published by HITACHI. That is the problem.
> Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
> Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
> Hitachi a little:
> - Stealing of font goes negative prescription
??? I do not understand.
> - Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
> need to answer something
You mean me. It is their obligation if they want to claim their right.
> - Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank
If it is not protected by law, they do not have right.
> want to allow to copy/redistribution freely, other font vendors
> don't permit. Creating Japanese font is not so cheap work. It
> creates a market.
You mean there is financial value. So does any piece of software.
> Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.
I do not understand this. If they forget, just shut up or give away any
rights if it existed. Problem is the other way.
> But we, Debian Project, need to say our official statement if we
> continue to distribute.
I think this happened since you requested as "must".
> It's not for Hitachi/Typebank, but for our users and distributors.
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.
How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.
I am happy to see them go out of archive as long as the reason is right
one.
Osamu
Reply to: