Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots

Hi Tom,

Am 08.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Tom Davies:

The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does
not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are.  Indeed, there was a meeting
that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian.
There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived
risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be
avoided by using Gnu&Linux if easily possible.

this was briefly mentioned during the call: the publisher of the screenshots would be at risk. So initially the risk at the indiviual who contributes the screenshot (and therefore publishes it at
the wiki, a documentation collaboration site or anywhere else).
If TDF makes the document an official TDF documentation (means TDF is the visible publisher)
the risk is at TDF as well.

With Gnu&Linux screen-shots there is NO risk.

Oh, who did say that ? :) E.g. no Gnu/Linux software license gives you permission to take a
screenshot and redistribute this under a CC license.
Of course, there would be hardly any FLOSS developer claiming that you should not do so.

There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered
by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could
1.  Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or
2.  TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves
The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was
produced using non-Windows screen-shots.

Oh - imho TDF should be there to protect individuals (who actually contribute to TDF projects),
 not to sue them.

In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS
for saving data.  The TomTom devices used what 'everyone' uses for saving data.
The hardware was their own, the systems were their own but they used Fat32, or
Fat16 file-systems for saving their own data onto their own devices.

This is a completely different story, as parts of FAT are patent protected and MS is getting patent license fees from almost all implementors (so yes, even for your digicam you likey pay to MS).
But .. this is getting far off-topic.



Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.