Software Freedom Law Center

[Jeremy White]

Hi Folks,

There is an exciting announcement out today:

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS7711938137.html

Essentially, OSDL has funded a community oriented pro-bono
legal service for Free and Open Source Software Projects.
The Center is led by Eben Moglen, the chief counsel for
the FSF.

I've been speaking privately with Eben Moglen about this
new effort, and he tells me that they would like to
have the Wine Project as one if their very first clients.

Candidly, this seems fantastic to me; one of the difficult
things that I face when promoting Wine is peoples Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt about the legality of Wine.
Having an opportunity to clarify these legal issues
is probably the most important thing that could happen
for Wine, in my opinion (well, okay, maybe it's
less important than support for Pirates! <grin>).

However, before I go off to request the services of
the SFLC, I thought I would post this announcement here
and open it for any discussion.  I'd particularly
like to hear if folks can think of any reasons
why this might be a bad thing.

Finally, the key objectives from my standpoint are
as follows:
   1.  Get an opinion written on Wine and copyright
       issues (imho, we have no IP issues here)
   2.  Get some legal research done on Patent issues
       I don't know how this will turn out, so I think
       we should wait for the research.
   3.  Investigate the legal doctrine surrounding what
       use a monopoly can make of its patents; I know
       that US antitrust law provides some restraints,
       but it would be great to have a legal opinion on
       the matter.

Thoughts?  Comments?

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Brian Vincent]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:38:42 -0600, Jeremy White  wrote:
> I've been speaking privately with Eben Moglen about this
> new effort, and he tells me that they would like to
> have the Wine Project as one if their very first clients.

I think this is an excellent idea.

Your three ideas were great.  I can also think of a few other things:

1) EULA enforcement.  Are there areas where EULA's don't apply, is
that information useful to us in any way, or is it information we want
to publish?
2) Along the same lines, I'm sure most MS EULA's have boilerplate that
says, "If any part of this EULA is unenforceable, it does not affect
the other parts."  Are there any parts of MS EULA's that aren't
enforceable because they are a monopoly?  What about redistribution
rights?  Can the "core fonts" be packaged?
3) An inward look at Wine - are there copyright/trademark issues we
need to be aware of other countries?
4) I'm going to be writing a chapter called "Enterprise Deployment"
for this little book in a few weeks.  Something I need to cover is
licensing .  Would they be willing to review it?  It's going to be
about 3 - 5 pages long.
5) *putting on PR hat* Is there something we could have them look at
or something they could do that would that would be newsworthy?  If
both OSDL and Wine could come out with a press release it might create
a nice buzz.  Something like, "OSDL Successfully Lobbies Macrovision
to Produce Safedisc Driver for Wine".

-Brian

[Shachar Shemesh]

Brian Vincent wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:38:42 -0600, Jeremy White  wrote:
> > I've been speaking privately with Eben Moglen about this
> > new effort, and he tells me that they would like to
> > have the Wine Project as one if their very first clients.
>
> I think this is an excellent idea.

A little of my experience with lawyers. I fully trust Jeremy to know 
this, and know how to handle this. Still, it's something to keep in mind.

Lawyers are hired to cover their asses. When you go out to consult with 
one, they are usually trained to do just one thing - alert you to the 
dangers of the actions you are about to take. Actually, at least in 
Israel, malpractice laws more or less require them to do so.

It is therefor usually not beneficial to ask them questions that revolve 
around "is there a risk in doing....". Almost always the answer will be 
"yes, there is". You usually want to know not whether there are risks, 
but what these risks are. A lawyer can sometimes help you with that, but 
more often then not can't.
> Your three ideas were great.  I can also think of a few other things:
> - EULA enforcement.  Are there areas where EULA's don't apply, is
>
> that information useful to us in any way, or is it information we want
> to publish?

I can answer that one for you. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are 
not. I'm pretty sure I've read about precedences pointing both ways. For 
example - an EULA where the user has a chance to read it before making 
the actual transaction is more likely to bind. In my eyes, an EULA that 
comes way after you have already started using the product, such as with 
the Microsoft Updates site, cannot be binding (but that's just me).

The question is therefor not whether EULAs apply, or whether any 
specific EULA applies. It's whether you are likely to get sued.
> - Along the same lines, I'm sure most MS EULA's have boilerplate that
>
> says, "If any part of this EULA is unenforceable, it does not affect
> the other parts."  Are there any parts of MS EULA's that aren't
> enforceable because they are a monopoly?  What about redistribution
> rights?  Can the "core fonts" be packaged?

I can give you my answer to the last one. No, they cannot. You need to 
remember that Microsoft is likely not even the copyright owner. Also, 
fonts are typically protected by something called a "design patent".

We can gather some money (I think it's somewhere in the $50K area) and 
buy copyright and patent license for distributing them. It's been done 
with some Hebrew fonts and OpenOffice - you are allowed to give those 
proprietary fonts with OpenOffice, but only if it's a release sanctioned 
by Sun.

I think the more important aspect here is a moral one - these is 
copyrighted work. We need to respect this copyright.
> -Brian

Shachar