Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)
Thanks Osamu for clearing the issue,
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:12:12 +0100,
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> 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.
> > 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?
I think Kochi is nicer looking than Watanabe.
I don't know users who use Watanabe for default screen font since Woody.
Of course, from the view of "just an alternative", Kochi and Watanabe
is different looks. That's all.
> 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.
> > 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.
Yes.
> > 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.
Sorry, I don't familiar with law word.
In the other words, steal from Hitachi/Typebank original font occured
very long time ago. There was no law protection (only license
agreement?) in that time. If Hitachi/Typebank want to sue thief guy,
this act is expired by criminal law/civil law, I think.
> > - 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.
I think so.
But Japanese court sometime make strange decision :-)
> > 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.
Well, this may be difficult for Hitachi/Typebank.
They seem haven't make consensus opinion (especially Hitachi is big company).
Of course they don't tell us "please remind me such a problem"
officialy. Hitachi announced a ambiguous statement relucantly.
> 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 want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.
This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.
Thanks,
--
Kenshi Muto
kmuto@debian.org
Reply to: