[steering-discuss] decision on screenshots

Hi Florian,

sorry if this turns out to be a discussion (here) again, but ...

Hi Christoph,

> Screenshots for documentation, website and marketing should preferably
> be taken on GNU/Linux, but may also be taken on any other operating
> system.
>
> The Steering Committee acknowledges that there is a small legal risk
> involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but the risk is
> deemed low.
>
> The Steering Committee recommends a consistent visual appearance (e.g.
> theming) for the screenshots taken on the selected operating system. It
> is up to the LibreOffice community how to achieve that consistency.

thanks for that!

Honestly, I would leave out that last paragraph. This is something
indeed the teams should decide, so I am not in favor of having that
mentioned in an official SC decision.

Although I also think that the paragraph I've proposed looks weird from
the SC point-of-view, let's try it the other way round: Is the currently
proposed SC decision (the first two paragraphs) helpful for the
community and the project? At least it says that each individual, all of
the teams are free in their decision - which is somehow good.

But: when I've summarized the issue some mails ago, I got aware that
screenshots are taken across all the teams (e.g. website, marketing,
documentation, development). Screenshots and videos heavily influence
how "we" (as a project) are perceived (by e.g. customers). In this case,
some (balanced) recommendation by the SC might provide guidance across
the teams. Unfortunately, decisions within the individual teams are
hard, across the teams close to impossible :slight_smile:

Consequently, I think that the two parts: decision (use any OS) and
_recommendation_ (strive for some consistency, but decide yourself how
to do that) adds value in this case.

Let's try to keep the SC decisions
as easy as possible. We could also mention that the resolution, the icon
sets etc. should be decided by the teams, but I think this is out of
scope for any SC decision

True.

So, would you object to leave out the third paragraph? :slight_smile:

At least not hard - but please keep in mind that the originally proposed
SC decision causes more uncertainty and inhomogeneity than we had
before.

So, I think that's the last "pro active" mail on this topic from my side
(I already can hear some relief *G*).

Cheers,
Christoph

The Steering Committee acknowledges that there is a small legal risk
involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but the risk is
deemed low.

This is too strong. The fact is, every action any project takes is subject to legal risk. Name one that isn't. All that's happened here is that (for whatever motive) the theoretical risk has been articulated for (a part of) this case. I'd suggest saying:

"The Steering Committee feels that the legal risk involved in using screenshots of non-free desktops in documentation is no greater than any other theoretical risk facing software projects."

S.

Hi :slight_smile:
That would completely change the statement. It is the opposite of what Florian
wrote. Are we going to reopen discussion about the issue again?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

My proposal stands :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk
in a way that could NOT be fix easily & quickly would be really dumb. It is an
easily avoidable risk.

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.

With Gnu&Linux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation
Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally
consistent documentation. The licensing of Gnu&Linux tends to be copy-left
allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows
Eula is very restrictive and people in the discussion even highlighted
paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make
them useful for documentation would be a violation.

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.

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.

Fat32, Fat16 or just plain Fat are 'used by everyone' for usb-sticks,
memory-cards, sd-cards for cameras, phones, mobile devices, calculators and so
on. Apparently we should all pay MS for the privilege of storing our own data
on our own systems just in case MS suddenly decides to single us out while
ignoring other people's violations.

Personally on small external devices i tend to stick with ext2 or i don't even
worry about the re-writes issue on older SSd tech, and use ext4. The Fat
systems is notoriously flaky and even Ntfs has horrible problems that are neatly
avoided in the ancient ext2 so i actually gain a lot by doing so. Occasionally
i can't share data on it with insecure systems.

Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of
types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat
their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner?

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi Tom,

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 ? :slight_smile: 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.

regards,

André

Hi :slight_smile:
I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk
in a way that could NOT be fix easily & quickly would be really dumb.  It is an
easily avoidable risk.

I think it is unnecessary to worry about fabricated convoluted legal
scenario without precedent.

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.

Did you pool the steering committee member individually ? what basis
do you have to claim that just _one person_ think that this legal
angle to force a POV is a strawman ?

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.

using Linux and/or Gnu does not avoid the alleged risk. Neither own
the copyright on icons that would be displayed in a screen-shoot.

With Gnu&Linux screen-shots there is NO risk.  It also means the Documentation
Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally
consistent documentation.

Yes the 'consistent' argument is indeed valid... but the so-called
legal risk is a straw man

The licensing of Gnu&Linux tends to be copy-left
allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like.  By contrast the Windows
Eula is very restrictive

The Eula could demand that you give away your first born child, that
would still not make that the Law.
actually the French version of the EULA for Windows 7 Basic, Section
27, spell out clearly that Eula does not trump the Law of the Land.

and people in the discussion even highlighted
paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make
them useful for documentation would be a violation.

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

Apparently we don't even need Microsoft to conduct FUD campaign, we do
just fine on our own :frowning:

The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was
produced using non-Windows screen-shots.

In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS
for saving data.

What patent do screen-shoots infringe ?
And how did you get access to confidential settlement terms ?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html :
"Specific financial terms were not disclosed. "

[snip irrelevant US-patent non-sens ]

Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of
types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid.  Why ask people to beat
their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner?

Or just easily not enocurage those that manufacture brick wall in their path.

Norbert

Hi :slight_smile:
It's easy to make empty promises but there is nothing written down to say that
the Steering Committee and BoD would accept any responsibility at all. The risk
is all on individual contributors at the moment.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
There were a reasonable amount of "+1"s to the first draft produced by Florian
and no-one voted against it then or after the meeting. We had just heard the
advice of a couple of legal people one of whom specialises in this type of
area.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

:slight_smile:

What is the precise issue you have with the proposed amended language, Tom? Please be specific so we aren't just appealing to the gallery here. I assert that the language I am proposing is a minor change that has the same effect as the earlier text but ensures we do not leave hostages to fortune.

Are there any others sharing Tom's concern please?

S.

/:slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
The precise problem i have with the amended wording is that it reverses the
meaning of the 2 paragraphs. Florian did a minor adjustment but your's
completely changes it to say the opposite of the original.

I suspect that no-one on the SC or BoD has any legal training or experience in
this area of law even for just the US let alone globally. The couple of
experienced legal professionals that were able to let the list know their
opinions last time are probably not thrilled with the idea of again spending
time to give advice again about the same issue. Can the SC stand by a decision
it made a couple of months ago or not? Should we ignore legal opinion and go
with whatever seems like "common sense"?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

:slight_smile:

It does nothing of the sort.

/:slight_smile:

Hi Simon,

This is too strong. The fact is, every action any project takes is subject to legal risk. Name one that isn't. All that's happened here is that (for whatever motive) the theoretical risk has been articulated for (a part of) this case. I'd suggest saying:

"The Steering Committee feels that the legal risk involved in using screenshots of non-free desktops in documentation is no greater than any other theoretical risk facing software projects."

not totally. IIRC, Microsoft claimed that taking screenshots will breach the EULA. So, to me, although it is a lot of FUD, it is a bit different to any "normal" (unclaimed) risks in daily open source work.

To bring this topic to an end, I tried to incorporate all changes into the following statement - thoughts welcome:

==
Screenshots for documentation, website and marketing should preferably be taken on GNU/Linux, but may also be taken on any other operating system.

The Steering Committee acknowledges that there is a small legal risk involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but it feels that the legal risk involved is no greater than other theoretical risk free software projects face.

The Steering Committee recommends a consistent visual appearance (e.g. theming) for the screenshots taken on the selected operating system. It is up to the LibreOffice community how to achieve that consistency.

Can we all live with that?

Florian

Hi,

Florian Effenberger wrote (10-08-11 10:21)

To bring this topic to an end, I tried to incorporate all changes into
the following statement - thoughts welcome:

==
Screenshots for documentation, website and marketing should preferably
be taken on GNU/Linux, but may also be taken on any other operating system.

OK

The Steering Committee acknowledges that there is a small legal risk
involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but it feels
that the legal risk involved is no greater than other theoretical risk
free software projects face.

The Steering Committee notices there are discussions about a small legal risk involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but does not feel the need to make any advise on this and also takes no liability whatever in this matter.

The Steering Committee recommends a consistent visual appearance (e.g.
theming) for the screenshots taken on the selected operating system. It
is up to the LibreOffice community how to achieve that consistency.

OK

Hi :slight_smile:
I can live with that.

I would prefer it if "theming" was replaced with "Branding" and "risk" with
"risks". Also the line
"but it feels that the legal risk involved is no greater than other theoretical
risk free software projects face."

replaced with
"but it feels that the legal risk involved is low and easily avoided by using
screen-shots from Gnu&Linux where possible."

However, i think Florian's new version is plenty good enough.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

HI :slight_smile:
No, absolutely not. Totally disagree. The 2nd paragraph as written by Cor
contradicts the first paragraph and will push people into using Windows for
screen-shots. It then states that individuals will be prosecuted if at all
possible if any breach of Eula does go to court. This is NOT acceptable imo.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi,

The Steering Committee notices there are discussions about a small legal
risk involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but does
not feel the need to make any advise on this and also takes no liability
whatever in this matter.

we cannot exclude liability. As soon as TDF issues documentation, in cases of gross negligence, the BoD will be held liable later on.

Florian

--
Simon Phipps, http://webmink.com/
+44 774 776 2816 or +1 415 683 7660
Independent Global Open Source Expertise

On 10 Aug 2011, at 09:21, Florian Effenberger wrote:

Hi Simon,

Simon Phipps wrote on 2011-08-07 14:44:

This is too strong. The fact is, every action any project takes is subject to legal risk. Name one that isn't. All that's happened here is that (for whatever motive) the theoretical risk has been articulated for (a part of) this case. I'd suggest saying:

"The Steering Committee feels that the legal risk involved in using screenshots of non-free desktops in documentation is no greater than any other theoretical risk facing software projects."

not totally. IIRC, Microsoft claimed that taking screenshots will breach the EULA.

Do you have a reference where? I have only seen speculative interpretation of the EULA.

So, to me, although it is a lot of FUD, it is a bit different to any "normal" (unclaimed) risks in daily open source work.

To bring this topic to an end, I tried to incorporate all changes into the following statement - thoughts welcome:

==
Screenshots for documentation, website and marketing should preferably be taken on GNU/Linux, but may also be taken on any other operating system.

The Steering Committee acknowledges that there is a small legal risk involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but it feels that the legal risk involved is no greater than other theoretical risk free software projects face.

The Steering Committee recommends a consistent visual appearance (e.g. theming) for the screenshots taken on the selected operating system. It is up to the LibreOffice community how to achieve that consistency.

Can we all live with that?

I think it is a mistake to state that the SC acknowledges a risk. It is a hostage to fortune in the event of litigation, and it's not necessary to state.

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Florian Effenberger wrote (10-08-11 12:22)

Hi,

The Steering Committee notices there are discussions about a small legal
risk involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but does
not feel the need to make any advise on this and also takes no liability
whatever in this matter.

we cannot exclude liability. As soon as TDF issues documentation, in
cases of gross negligence, the BoD will be held liable later on.

Yes of course. With that explanation, your 2nd paragraph is OK for me.

Thanks,

Unfortunately that ship has sailed... too late now, the harm is
already done.... but sure, keeping it as a standing policy is worse.

Norbert