Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:09:15PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:04:32PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +0000,
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:52:01AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > > > At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,
> > > > Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
> > > > > > that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
> > > > > reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.
> > > >
> > > > So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?
What claim? The fact that "they are so called 'stolen' from the word
processor"? I know their claim of "font history". I pretty much
believe it as is although they did not do a good job convincing me. I
am not arguing on that. The evaluation of the history is only required
when the "ownership" issues is resolved to Hitachi's favor.
My problem is their claim of exclusive "ownership" which streches to
vectorized fonts. Their claim of "ownership" requires due action on
their side. If we bend over to their claim of this extensive
"ownership" under such an loose claim, we set ourselves a bad
precidence. That is the real issue. This is not just Japanese issue.
Attitude? Let's not deviate from real discussion.
> > > If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
> > > isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.
> > Yeah, if we recognize it's just bogus, then we don't discuss seriously
> > and don't consume our precious time.
> > Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
> > author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
> > conclusion was that it was not just bogus.
The "inflingiment" is very doubtful considering Hitachi does not have
any right to start with.
> Erm, when asking the question of whether or not they are right, their
> own statement that they are right is not useful.
True. The same goes with the fact of their "ownership". That needs to
be evaluated. Or kill these fonts out of archive with tottaly
different reason. Then we loose reason to argue.