Re: Bug#156503: M$ true type fonts in non-free?

[Eric Sharkey <sharkey@netrics.com>]

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:47:31AM -0400, Eric Sharkey wrote:
> > There used to be more information about Microsoft's interprettation of
> > their own EULA on the font web page.  Since that page is gone, it's no
> > longer there, but the gist of it was that they were taking a very very
> > strict view of "a true and complete copy", to the extent that changing
> > the packaging of the fonts in any way (even just changing the filename
> > without changing the file contents) would make it no longer a true and
> > complete copy.  They were pretty clear on this point.
> > 
> > In other words, no tarballs allowed.  Distribution has to be in the form
> > of a collection of separate Windows 95 self-installing executables.
> 
> Then there should still be nothing wrong with packing all of those
> .exe's in a tar file, for transport. The package would then be based on
> the current installer package.

The problem with copyright lawsuits is that the opinion of the defendant
has absolutely no bearing.  What matters is the opinion of the plaintiff,
who decides if a suit should be filed, and the opinion of the judge,
who decides who wins.

I don't want to end up in a position where I even need to think about the
opinion of a judge.

Here's the Web Fonts FAQ, care of archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020124073322/www.microsoft.com/typography/faq/faq8.htm

Note the following:

  * You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form
    (.exe or .sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your
    Web site or intranet site.
  * You must not supply the fonts, or any derivative fonts based on
    them, in any form that adds value to commercial products, such as
    CD-ROM or disk based multimedia programs, application software or
    utilities. See Microsoft's permissions site for more details.

This sounds pretty clear to me as to what their intent is with these fonts.
Encapsulation in a .tar runs against the first point, and in a .deb
may run against the second.

It's not a chance I'm willing to take.

Eric