[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

Hi Steve,

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:21:56PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 12:41:13PM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> What license does it violate?

None.  But let's defocus from Hitachi.

> > Dead-copy should be removed also. Hitachi/Typebank continue to sell
> > original font.

I personally do not like to do such an action but arguing your *removal
request* along this path will not be very productive.

> And they are welcome to continue selling the font to anyone who is
> willing to pay for it.
> However, I am always opposed to retroactively granting of intellectual

I agree 100 %.  Japan has its constitution claiming "no retroactive law
shall be valid".

> property rights that did not exist at the time of a work's creation.  If
> Hitachi had a reasonable belief based in existing Japanese case law that
> copyright protection would apply to the font, I'm at least inclined to
> be sympathetic to their plight; but I don't think this makes it an issue

Same here.

> that needs to be corrected in a stable release.

Maybe not this request directly.

> > And kochi font upstream author recommends to use new font strongly.
> > Do we ignore his intent also?

I think you should explain the reason behind this "intent".  Then people
will understand.

> > Goto-san has already uploaded newer packages to woody, but Martin's
> > list don't include them. But xfonts-intl-japanese-big is included.
> A package's maintainer is always free to request removal of their
> package from unstable, if they feel that Debian should no longer
> distribute it (for any reason).  But for a stable release, even a change
> in the available font list could be a regression.  We should have solid
> reasons for wanting such a removal.

I think nobody arguing against this.

> > > > 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.
> > Steve, do you want to make distributors/users in Japan to teststone?
> > I don't agree this idea.
> > Debian Project has the responsibility about distribution.
> Do you believe that our distributors and users in Japan are truly in any
> danger from Hitachi over this issue?

Let's clam down this discussion.  Let's ask following questions first.

1. Does the innuendos by Hitachi cause worry or hassle to the users in Japan 
   and/or CD distributors?
2. Does new set of fonts better looking than old sets?
3. Is there any damage to the consistency of the distribution by
   removing these problematic fonts.
4. Does the new set of fonts proven in other distribution?

If answers are 1=maybe, 2=yes, 3=no, and 4=yes, maybe it is not worth
keeping these problematic old set of fonts in our archive.

> We distribute software that infringes potentially thousands of software
> patents, and apply the same policy:  if there is no reason to believe
> the patent will be enforced in court, the patent should be treated as if
> it did not exist.  And patents pose more of a danger to our users than
> this purported "font right" does, because it's use of patented ideas
> that infringes a patent holder's rights; I'm not sure what behaviors
> would be seen to infringe this hypothetical "font right".

As long as the removal request clearly recognizes that this request/innuendo
by the Hitachi is found to be baseless, I think we should remove these
old fonts as useless dataset.

I think previous message by Henning Makholm also think this way.
  Message-ID: <[🔎] 87wu9vldmo.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net>

What is your thought on this?

I think the package removal request are rewritten wishy more accurate
description of fact, we should remove them.  But testing the proposed
update data are the must before actually implementing it.  Let's do it
at next point release.


Reply to: