Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Submissions in Word Format

[PIIS31415926]

Tom Chance <address@hidden> writes:

>> The only way we can not use GIFs is to offer an alternative. We
>> can't expect people to submit PNGs because few know about them and
>> few will have software that will create them.
>
>That is not the issue, but as has been pointed out the LZW patent
>apparently doesn't cover software which only does decompression, so we
>can accept GIFs and immediately convert them to PNGs (although IANAL).

I would be real careful if you really believe this.  Although I'd have to 
agree with you, Unisys doesn't and will agressively go after projects (and 
free software projects would be a big one) that don't follow the patent.  
Luckily, we can **cough** use propriatary software to _convert_ the image as 
long as the image itself is in the public domain or copyrights have been 
licensed under a free document license.

Actually, I take that back...  one of the seldom discussed evils of some 
propritary software packages is that the output of any software package _can_ 
be copyrighted by the author of that software.  This includes compilers, text 
editors, image manipulators, ect.  This right has been upheld by several 
court decisions, but is seldom invoked anymore because few people would buy 
such a package if they thought that the stuff they "created" with a software 
package would have to pay a perpetual royalty to the company that wrote the 
software that they made the original content with.

Then again.... if you have a chance, look at the web site:

http://www.mpegla.com/

if you think you have an iron stomache.  That is, in essence, what the people 
with this consortium are saying and even worse.  They are even implying that 
even if the author of the software that created the content said you were 
free and clear, they still want your money.  Only 2 cents (US$) per MP3 that 
you distribute, but they still want it.  And it is your responsibility to 
collect that money and out of the generosity of your heart to donate that 
money to their for-profit corporation so they can buy their yachts and take 
care of the poor starving CEOs.  Read what the site and see if you don't 
agree.

What I'm trying to say is that it is a very slippery slope when you use stuff 
that comes from propritary software.  Actually, I see that can even be a 
problem with the GPL now that I'm thinking about it.  The GPL says 
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered 
by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program 
is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its 
contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been 
made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the 
Program does."  If I am reading this correctly, even the holy GPL doesn't 
stop this kind of activity.  Yeeech!

I would say that most people involved in writing a GPL'd software app won't 
charge royalties for content generated, and isn't the case for anything I've 
seen.  I'm sick of the whole intellectual property landmine field anyway and 
am glad that stuff like this project are trying to fight back.