Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2 (II)

[Kenshi Muto]

At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,

Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
=====================================
An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/>.
I am preparing the second revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) which will probably be released soon. This
report is to allow people to comment on it and intervene whenever
this is required.
If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and
explain why these things should be handled differently. There is
still time to reconsider.

Please, please wait.
Before you release r2, we must solve Japanese Watanabe font problem.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html

It makes very serious problem in Japan to release current status.
But some of relational maintainers don't act.

ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (Bug#214587), ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
(Bug#214395), ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (Bug#214400),
xfonts-intl-japanese-big (Bug#215371) must be removed and have already
been reassigned to ftp.debian.org.
Please do your work, ftp maintainers.

watanabe-vfont (Bug#214399) aren't reassigned to ftp.debian.org, but
this must be removed. Please action, Taruishi-san.

ttf-kochi-mincho and ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 (Bug#214402) aren't
reassigned to ftp.debian.org. These package can be replaced by new
kochi font (kochi-subst), but if Goto-san hasn't any time for this
work, they must be removed. Please answer, Goto-san.

Thanks,
- --
Kenshi Muto
***@debian.org

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

The regulations for stable are quite conservative. The requirements
1. The package fixes a security problem. An advisory by our own
Security Team is required. Updates need to be approved by the
security team.
2. The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into data loss,
data corruption, or an overly broken system, or the package is
broken or not usable (anymore).
3. The stable version of the package is not installable at all due to
broken or unmet dependencies or broken installation scripts.
It is ((1 OR 2 OR 3) AND 4) OR 5
aspell-en stable 0.33.7.1-8 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k powerpc s390 sparc
aspell stable 0.33.7.1-8 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k powerpc s390 sparc source
libaspell-dev stable 0.33.7.1-8 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k powerpc s390 sparc
libaspell10 stable 0.33.7.1-8 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k powerpc s390 sparc
The license incorrectly says that it's LGPL but it is in fact
a unique license which is non-DFSG-free.

A package I have recently adopted, scsh, is in the same case. It is in
main, but in fact contains non-free parts. A (temporary, until all
different authors are traced and that they can agree to free the code)
solution is in sid (source, i386) and underway for the other arches
and sarge.

Does this warrant an update in a woody revision? Why? Is this
considered a "Security issue", because it may cause people with guns
(police) to come to your house and threaten you? Shall I then contact
the security team about this, too?

Shall I then prepare an updated package, with correct copyright file,
for stable/non-free, and try to get people to compile it for all
arches?

[GOTO Masanori]

At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 22:26:25 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto
At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,

Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
=====================================
An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/>.
I am preparing the second revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) which will probably be released soon. This
report is to allow people to comment on it and intervene whenever
this is required.
If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and
explain why these things should be handled differently. There is
still time to reconsider.

Please, please wait.
Before you release r2, we must solve Japanese Watanabe font problem.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html

Yes, good catch up.

Post by Kenshi Muto
ttf-kochi-mincho and ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10 (Bug#214402) aren't
reassigned to ftp.debian.org. These package can be replaced by new
kochi font (kochi-subst), but if Goto-san hasn't any time for this
work, they must be removed. Please answer, Goto-san.

This problem affects for: ttf-kochi-mincho, ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10,
ttf-kochi-gothic, ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10.

I've just uploaded these newer version which has no license problem.

Regards,
-- gotom

[Grzegorz B. Prokopski]

xnc stable 4.4.7-3 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source
xnc updates 4.4.7-3.woody.1 alpha arm hppa i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc source
* Version prepared for 3.0r1. Closes: #149191
* Previous version was causing Debian menu system breakage when installed.
Update-menus was completly disfunctional.
The fix is more than trivial - required me to change 2 chars in rules,
and add "_" to two filenames. Please let this version go into stable.
TODO: Find out if this update is required

This package was supposed to get into 3.0r1 and you didn't see any
problems with it at that time AFAIR. The only problem was that it was
not built for some arches back then.

The update is just like the changelog says - small (2 chars) and w/o
this - a user who installed xnc will be unable to generate menu
files on his system (w/ update-menus).

Summary: let it go in

Grzegorz B. Prokopski

[Martin Schulze]

Post by Kenshi Muto
At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,

Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
=====================================
An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/>.
I am preparing the second revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) which will probably be released soon. This
report is to allow people to comment on it and intervene whenever
this is required.
If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and
explain why these things should be handled differently. There is
still time to reconsider.

Please, please wait.
Before you release r2, we must solve Japanese Watanabe font problem.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html

If I understood you correctly, you want me to remove these packages:

ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
watanabe-vfont
ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt)
ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt)

from the stable distribution due to license problems, right?

That is possible.

Post by Kenshi Muto
It makes very serious problem in Japan to release current status.

I guess so... Are there any usable fonts left over?

Regards,

Joey

[Steve Langasek]

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Kenshi Muto
At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,

Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
=====================================
An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/>.
I am preparing the second revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) which will probably be released soon. This
report is to allow people to comment on it and intervene whenever
this is required.
If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and
explain why these things should be handled differently. There is
still time to reconsider.

Please, please wait.
Before you release r2, we must solve Japanese Watanabe font problem.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html

ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
watanabe-vfont
ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt)
ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt)
from the stable distribution due to license problems, right?
That is possible.

I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
problems with these fonts.

The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,
seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent. Unless
Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is in the
rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do not
constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the legal
counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but there are
other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides the letter
of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the parties'
pockets.

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.

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Kenshi Muto
At Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:59:24 +0100,

Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r2
=====================================
An up-to-date version is at <http://master.debian.org/~joey/3.0r2/>.
I am preparing the second revision of the current stable Debian
distribution (woody) which will probably be released soon. This
report is to allow people to comment on it and intervene whenever
this is required.
If you disagree with one bit or another, please reply to this mail and
explain why these things should be handled differently. There is
still time to reconsider.

Please, please wait.
Before you release r2, we must solve Japanese Watanabe font problem.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html

ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
watanabe-vfont
ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt)
ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt)
from the stable distribution due to license problems, right?
That is possible.

I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
problems with these fonts.
The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,

This does not sound like something the real lawyer reviewed.

Post by Steve Langasek
seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent.

I agree.

Post by Steve Langasek
Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
legal counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but
there are other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides
the letter of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the
parties' pockets.

If the party who is using HITACHI font is commercial entity, they may
likely to pay some money to avoid costly litigation if settlement
includes no actual financial impact. It does not even say how much they
gained.

I do not think the Japanese law is created in a much different manner.

Post by Steve Langasek
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.

I agree.

One question to ask is "is this useful fonts?" If not, we have totally
different ground to remove this package based on uselessness :-)

If we ever remeve this package, reason should not be "We must do this
because HITACH said so". That is dangerous path.

Osamu

[Miles Bader]

Post by Osamu Aoki
One question to ask is "is this useful fonts?" If not, we have totally
different ground to remove this package based on uselessness :-)

Are there any other good-looking japanese TTF fonts in debian?

I ttf-kochi-{gothic,mincho} and I remember every other japanese font
looked horrible (but maybe I missed something).

[Is ttf-kochi-gothic not a problem?]

-Miles

[Kenshi Muto]

At 19 Nov 03 18:12:44 GMT,
I'm sorry but I missed this mail.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
problems with these fonts.
The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,

This does not sound like something the real lawyer reviewed.

Post by Steve Langasek
seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent.

I agree.

Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
legal counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but
there are other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides
the letter of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the
parties' pockets.

If the party who is using HITACHI font is commercial entity, they may
likely to pay some money to avoid costly litigation if settlement
includes no actual financial impact. It does not even say how much they
gained.
I do not think the Japanese law is created in a much different manner.

The phase of whether legal or illegal was really old issue.

LABO-123 32dot was fully-copied without license agreement from Hitachi.
Watanabe font/xfonts-intl-japanese-big(<1.2.1) is copied from LABO-123
as is.
Kochi font was copied some part from Watanabe.

IMHO Japanese font stands very weak about legal basis, but LABO-123
creates by license violation. Dead-copy should be
removed also. Hitachi/Typebank continue to sell original font.

And kochi font upstream author recommends to use new font strongly.
Do we ignore his intent also?
Goto-san has already uploaded newer packages to woody, but Martin's
list don't include them. But xfonts-intl-japanese-big is included.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
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.

If we continue to distribute claimed fonts, we must announce our
consensus and tell how to protect our distributors/users.

Post by Osamu Aoki
I agree.
One question to ask is "is this useful fonts?" If not, we have totally
different ground to remove this package based on uselessness :-)
If we ever remeve this package, reason should not be "We must do this
because HITACH said so". That is dangerous path.

Finally, you are not font maintainer, Osamu.

Maintainers ACCEPTED and AGREED to remove, and has already
reassigned to ftp.debian.org. All of we(especially ftp maintainer)
must do is removing such apackage from ftp.debian.org ASAP, don't we?

Thanks,
- --
Kenshi Muto
***@debian.org

[David Palmer.]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 19 Nov 03 18:12:44 GMT,
I'm sorry but I missed this mail.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
problems with these fonts.
The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,

This does not sound like something the real lawyer reviewed.

Post by Steve Langasek
seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent.

I agree.

Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
legal counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but
there are other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides
the letter of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the
parties' pockets.

If the party who is using HITACHI font is commercial entity, they may
likely to pay some money to avoid costly litigation if settlement
includes no actual financial impact. It does not even say how much they
gained.
I do not think the Japanese law is created in a much different manner.

The phase of whether legal or illegal was really old issue.
LABO-123 32dot was fully-copied without license agreement from Hitachi.
Watanabe font/xfonts-intl-japanese-big(<1.2.1) is copied from LABO-123
as is.
Kochi font was copied some part from Watanabe.
IMHO Japanese font stands very weak about legal basis, but LABO-123
creates by license violation. Dead-copy should be
removed also. Hitachi/Typebank continue to sell original font.
And kochi font upstream author recommends to use new font strongly.
Do we ignore his intent also?
Goto-san has already uploaded newer packages to woody, but Martin's
list don't include them. But xfonts-intl-japanese-big is included.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
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.
If we continue to distribute claimed fonts, we must announce our
consensus and tell how to protect our distributors/users.

Post by Osamu Aoki
I agree.
One question to ask is "is this useful fonts?" If not, we have totally
different ground to remove this package based on uselessness :-)
If we ever remeve this package, reason should not be "We must do this
because HITACH said so". That is dangerous path.

Finally, you are not font maintainer, Osamu.
Maintainers ACCEPTED and AGREED to remove, and has already
reassigned to ftp.debian.org. All of we(especially ftp maintainer)
must do is removing such apackage from ftp.debian.org ASAP, don't we?
Thanks,
- --
Kenshi Muto

There is more to contend with in this scenario than legality. There are
distinct cultural protocol requirements as well, these are more
important if Debian is to maintain face in Japan.
If the package maintainers are agreeable, I would be honoured to act as
intermediary and approach Hitachi and ask their permission to use the
fonts, if the maintainers believe the fonts are worth incorporating into
the programme.
The worst they can do is say no, which I doubt they will do, but if they
do, no face is lost for anyone.
Regards,

David.

[Kenshi Muto]

At 20 Nov 2003 15:20:07 +0800,

Post by David Palmer.
There is more to contend with in this scenario than legality. There are
distinct cultural protocol requirements as well, these are more
important if Debian is to maintain face in Japan.
If the package maintainers are agreeable, I would be honoured to act as
intermediary and approach Hitachi and ask their permission to use the
fonts, if the maintainers believe the fonts are worth incorporating into
the programme.

Thanks your intention, but I must tell bad news.

1. Some people have already asked Hitachi about distributing Watanabe
font. The answer is always "No". Watanabe-font is fully copy of
Hitachi/Typebank product without any permission.
Continue to distribute without any attention to users may cause
serious trouble.
2. About Kochi font (in woody or older version), Hitachi answered "ask
Kochi author". But Kochi author, Furukawa refused to contract with
Hitachi/Typebank, and say "Don't never ask me. I stop to develop
Kochi font. All of font right reserve Hitachi/Typebank."
Currently Kochi font is maintained by efont-group
(http://sourceforge.jp/projects/efont/), but their font is already
resolved this issue by replacing problematic glyphs (this font is
merged into sarge/sid.) They don't want to contract with
Hitachi/Typebank.
So, unfortunately, Old Kochi font (Woody or more older include) stands
very unstable status.

Thanks,

[Henning Makholm]

Post by Kenshi Muto
Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?

What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.

Post by Kenshi Muto
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.

It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for
our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
infringement to present a more coherent case first.

[Kenshi Muto]

At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?

What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.

I see.

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.

It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for

"same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
original author's permission. It is too heavy work (and I think it may
be nonsense) to make Japanese font without any original font since
Japanese font needs massive glyphs.

One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.
Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
wait to install by ftp maintainers.

Post by Henning Makholm
our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
infringement to present a more coherent case first.

I tell history again (see
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00142.html):
-----------------------------------------
* background
In June 2003, KANOU Hiroki who is one of the developer of Kochi
font, FREE Japanese font, noticed that a part of characters in the
Kochi font are closely similar to a font that is provided by the font
vendor, TYPEBANK Co., Ltd.

Kochi font is based on so-called "Watanabe font" and is diverting
the part of the font. The same-looked fonts that is found in this
time matches this Watanabe font. Watanabe font was certainly
converted from LABO123 32-dot font which was distributed as Public
Domain Software.

As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the
bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co.,
Ltd. and HITACHI Ltd. collectively, and copied without
any authorization. Therefore, LABO123 32-dot font, Watanabe font and
any other derivative fonts violate the license of TYPEBANK and HITACHI.

In 29th September 2003, HITACHI announced...
-----------------------------------------

Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
Hitachi a little:
- Stealing of font goes negative prescription
- Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
need to answer something
- Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank
want to allow to copy/redistribution freely, other font vendors
don't permit. Creating Japanese font is not so cheap work. It
creates a market.
Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.

But we, Debian Project, need to say our official statement if we
continue to distribute.
It's not for Hitachi/Typebank, but for our users and distributors.

Thanks,

[Henning Makholm]

Post by Kenshi Muto

If there are more-clearly-free alternative fonts in Debian that
provide the same glyphs, then I won't oppose removing them. But if
removal would entail actual hardship for

"same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
original author's permission.

Huh? Does that means that Hitachi asserts a copyright on the very
words "their" font is used to write down, or what?

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

[Osamu Aoki]

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto

If there are more-clearly-free alternative fonts in Debian that
provide the same glyphs, then I won't oppose removing them. But if
removal would entail actual hardship for

"same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
original author's permission.

Huh? Does that means that Hitachi asserts a copyright on the very
words "their" font is used to write down, or what?

HITACHI font is bitmap fonts. Since it is 32 dots fonts which can hold
some aestetic feature of characters, it has uniq shape as a set of
characters.

Some WATANABE fonts (vector) used HITACHI font derivative as its base.
(Someone copied font file used by HITACHI wordprocessor and distributed
without HITACHI's permission)

Can font data set can be protected is one question but that right
extends to vectorization is another big question. As I see, HITACHI
sees that way. I disagree here. I do not know they had shrinkwrap
contract for old wordprocessor either.

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

[GOTO Masanori]

At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?

Regards,
-- gotom

[Andrew Suffield]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?

If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.

[GOTO Masanori]

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +0000,

[1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?

If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.

Yeah, if we recognize it's just bogus, then we don't discuss seriously
and don't consume our precious time.

Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
conclusion was that it was not just bogus. Kochi upstream author,
Yasuyuki Furukawa, wrote details [1] at his web site (in Japanese).

[1] http://www.on.cs.keio.ac.jp/~yasu/jp_fonts.html

Regards,
-- gotom

[Andrew Suffield]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +0000,

[1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?

If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.

Yeah, if we recognize it's just bogus, then we don't discuss seriously
and don't consume our precious time.
Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
conclusion was that it was not just bogus.

Erm, when asking the question of whether or not they are right, their
own statement that they are right is not useful.

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Post by Andrew Suffield

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +0000,

[1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?

What claim? The fact that "they are so called 'stolen' from the word
processor"? I know their claim of "font history". I pretty much
believe it as is although they did not do a good job convincing me. I
am not arguing on that. The evaluation of the history is only required
when the "ownership" issues is resolved to Hitachi's favor.

My problem is their claim of exclusive "ownership" which streches to
vectorized fonts. Their claim of "ownership" requires due action on
their side. If we bend over to their claim of this extensive
"ownership" under such an loose claim, we set ourselves a bad
precidence. That is the real issue. This is not just Japanese issue.

Attitude? Let's not deviate from real discussion.

Post by Andrew Suffield

Post by GOTO Masanori

If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes.

Post by Andrew Suffield

Post by GOTO Masanori
Yeah, if we recognize it's just bogus, then we don't discuss seriously
and don't consume our precious time.
Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
conclusion was that it was not just bogus.

The "inflingiment" is very doubtful considering Hitachi does not have
any right to start with.

Post by Andrew Suffield
Erm, when asking the question of whether or not they are right, their
own statement that they are right is not useful.

True. The same goes with the fact of their "ownership". That needs to
be evaluated. Or kill these fonts out of archive with tottaly
different reason. Then we loose reason to argue.

Osamu

[Brian T. Sniffen]

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,

I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?

Well, it's complicated issue. It's no wonder some readers are
confused.

1. Were the hitachi fonts bitmaps?

Yes.

Then Hitachi has no copyright on the fonts -- at least not in the US,
though Japanese law may be different. Because bitmaps are the only
possible representation of the font at that resolution, there's no
creativity, and thus no copyright.

2. Were the kochi fonts bitmaps?

No and Yes.

OK. Then the kochi license matters. Truetype code is read as
*programs* by the courts, and so receives copyright protection.

The original watanabe font is converted from bitmap to truetype, and
such converted font is remarkably similar to the original.
In addition, kochi font has both truetype and bitmap information.
Bitmap information is used as truetype hinting information for
displaying specific small font size (12,14,16dot) for CRT.

3. Are the watanabe fonts bitmaps?

No and Yes.
Original watanabe font is bitmap, but ttf-watanabe-* font is converted
to truetype as I described above. Kochi used truetype version, but it
may use even bitmap information.

If the answer to any one of those three questions is yes, Debian's fine
distributing them.

So it can not distribute straightforwardly...
Regards,
-- gotom

[GOTO Masanori]

At Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:58:09 -0500,

Post by Brian T. Sniffen

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,

I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?

Well, it's complicated issue. It's no wonder some readers are
confused.

1. Were the hitachi fonts bitmaps?

Yes.

Then Hitachi has no copyright on the fonts -- at least not in the US,
though Japanese law may be different. Because bitmaps are the only
possible representation of the font at that resolution, there's no
creativity, and thus no copyright.

Well, I may need to explain the background of this difference.

Japanese Industry Standard (JIS) defines standard Japanese character
code points. JISX0208:1990 defines 6,879 code points, JISX0212:1990
defines 12,946, and JISX0213:2000 defines 11,223 (Mainly we use
JISX0208:1983/1990). On the other hand, the maximum number of
ISO-8859-1 character can define up to only 256.

Moreover, Kanji characters have complicated form. They consist of
usually from 1 to 30 lines/curves (example: 30 lines/curves: $BsB(B). For
fun, it seems more complicated characters[1] (almost all Japanese
don't know such weird characters, though). On the other hand,
alphabet consists of a few lines/curves.

So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
of such complicated characters. This is because we don't decide
easily that Japanese fonts are no creativity in even 32 dot bitmap
resolution. They are just art.

Moreover, it's hard to make even 8 dot (elisa 8 dot) or 10 dot
(xfonts-naga10) Japanese bitmap fonts, because such size is too small
to distinguish the difference of each characters (imagine filling 30
lines/curves in 10x10 bitmaps!). In such case, font creaters use
their brain and some techniques to chop off lines/curves.

So, in any resolutions, it's not easy to say there is no creativity in
Kanji/Hanji fonts.

[1] http://www.akatsukinishisu.net/kanji/mottomo.html

Regards,
-- gotom

[Anthony DeRobertis]

Post by GOTO Masanori
So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
of such complicated characters.

Well, at the risk of starting a flame war, that says more about how
screwed up the language is than about the copyrightability (in the US)
of a work. The amount of work doesn't really matter; the amount of
creativity does. See, e.g., Feist v. Rural Telephone.

Post by GOTO Masanori
This is because we don't decide
easily that Japanese fonts are no creativity in even 32 dot bitmap
resolution. They are just art.

There is certainly some creativity in any font, otherwise all fonts
would look the same (or would be random). I'm sure neither is the case.

Post by GOTO Masanori
So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
of such complicated characters. This is because we don't decide
easily that Japanese fonts are no creativity in even 32 dot bitmap
resolution. They are just art.

They are, as a matter of law in the United State, not copyrightable.
For example, this paragraph comes from the House Report on the 1976
Copyright Act:

A "typeface" can be defined as a set of letters, numbers or
other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating
design elements consistently applied in a notational system and
are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic
utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other
cognizable combinations or characters. The Committee does not
regard the design or typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyright
able "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work" within the meaning
or this bill and the application of the dividing line in
section 101. [H.R. Rep. No. 1478, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1976)].

In fact, before the 1976 act, typefaces were copyrightable in the
United States. Congress chose to change that.

See also 37 CFR Sec. 202.1, which reads (in part):
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright
and applications for registration of such works cannot be
entertained:

(e) Typeface as typeface.

There are other copyright office rulings saying that bitmap fonts can't
be copyrighted.



BTW: For the benefit of list readers who can't see that glyph, here it
is in PNG format w/ 96.0pt Osaka. Or, at least this is what my Mac
displays it as.

[Osamu Aoki]

Post by Anthony DeRobertis

Post by GOTO Masanori
So it's hard to make Japanese characters which have beautiful shape
and unified baseline because each form is complex, and there are a lot
of such complicated characters.

Well, at the risk of starting a flame war, that says more about how
screwed up the language is

What? I wonder your intent for this OT statement :-(

When you discuss things with non-native audience, safer choice of
language reduces frictions. This statement caused me to doubts the
intent of the speaker from my modern day multi-cultural values. Sorry.

Anyway, the idiosyncrasies are, I think, essential part the of culture.
Do not you love totally inconsistent spelling rule of English while most
other languages in Europe have rationalized their spelling rules in
modern days during the 17th-20th century. So I should think this
statement of "screwed up" as a compliment to the Japanese culture,
maybe :-)

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
than about the copyrightability (in the US) of a work.

You seem to know and very intelligent on this subject of copyright.
...

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
They are, as a matter of law in the United State, not copyrightable.
For example, this paragraph comes from the House Report on the 1976

...

Post by Anthony DeRobertis
There are other copyright office rulings saying that bitmap fonts can't
be copyrighted.

But US is not the only country in the world.

Anyway, the updated request for removal/update for these packages, I
hope, shall not contain reference to the "copyright" issues. Then the
result of these legal assessments will be irrelevant for the request.

Osamu

[Brian T. Sniffen]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:35:10 +0000,

[1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:36:40 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.

If this alternative contains the necessary glyphs, then I do not see
that much of a problem with removing the Hitachi fonts.

Exactly. We just has to make sure HITACHI's claim was not the primary
reason to do so. HITACHI is just a noise.

So you just ignore original font author's claim. Is it good attitude?

If their claim was bogus? Yup, it is. Paying attention to bogus claims
isn't just silly, it sets a very bad precendent.

Yeah, if we recognize it's just bogus, then we don't discuss seriously
and don't consume our precious time.
Original author (Hitachi, who were infringed), and kochi upstream
author (who infringed without knowing) already discussed and their
conclusion was that it was not just bogus. Kochi upstream author,
Yasuyuki Furukawa, wrote details [1] at his web site (in Japanese).
[1] http://www.on.cs.keio.ac.jp/~yasu/jp_fonts.html

I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?

Alternately, let me ask three simple questions:

1. Were the hitachi fonts bitmaps?

2. Were the kochi fonts bitmaps?

3. Are the watanabe fonts bitmaps?

If the answer to any one of those three questions is yes, Debian's fine
distributing them.

-Brian

[GOTO Masanori]

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:01:39 -0500,

I'm confused -- and don't read Japanese. But let me get one thing
straight: what Hitachi distributed were strictly bitmap fonts, right?
No metafont, truetype, or postscript font outlines, just bitmaps?

Well, it's complicated issue. It's no wonder some readers are
confused.

1. Were the hitachi fonts bitmaps?

Yes.

2. Were the kochi fonts bitmaps?

No and Yes.


The original watanabe font is converted from bitmap to truetype, and
such converted font is remarkably similar to the original.

In addition, kochi font has both truetype and bitmap information.
Bitmap information is used as truetype hinting information for
displaying specific small font size (12,14,16dot) for CRT.

3. Are the watanabe fonts bitmaps?

No and Yes.

Original watanabe font is bitmap, but ttf-watanabe-* font is converted
to truetype as I described above. Kochi used truetype version, but it
may use even bitmap information.

If the answer to any one of those three questions is yes, Debian's fine
distributing them.

So it can not distribute straightforwardly...

Regards,
-- gotom

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Post by Kenshi Muto
At 20 Nov 03 07:09:51 GMT,

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
Hmm, "we don't accept what is Hitachi said". This is consensus of us?

What they said certainly wasn't very convincing.

I see.

Muto-san, if what Hitachi said is all what they can for asserting their
"right", it is unconvincing and no one shall feel obligated. I think
Hitachi should find proper communication person who understands IP in
legal sense. But I think discussion went off course because we focused
on HITACHI issue too much.

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Kenshi Muto
I agree Hitachi make a mess, but it's not reason to kick them.

It's not so much a question of kicking Hitachi as providing scalable
Japanese fonts to our users. If there are more-clearly-free
alternative fonts in Debian that provide the same glyphs, then I won't
oppose removing them. But if removal would entail actual hardship for

"same glyph" of Watanabe-font causes a trouble. It means copy without
original author's permission.

That is called "threaft", if "glyph" is something which has exclusive
ownership permitted by the law after they put it to use for their
WORD-PROCESSOR. Also HITACHI was not actively keeping this kind thing to
happen. It has been long since then. In the sense HITACHI also
committed lack of active enforcement.

Also Debian got this as sort of innocent third party who has no binding
term signed with HITACHI.

Post by Kenshi Muto
It is too heavy work (and I think it may be nonsense) to make Japanese
font without any original font since Japanese font needs massive
glyphs.

This misses important point. The amount of workload does not create IP
right automatically. HITACHI must have legally protected their right in
some way, they can not extend the fact of creation to the exclusive
right.

This may not fit your common Japanese sense, but that is the law
anywhere including Japan, as I see it.

In some cases, copyright protect them. In other, design patent (this is
US thing.) protect them. Japanese registered "Ishoo" seems like kind of
design patent but I am not a lawyer. In other case, binding contract
protect them. If it is copyright, right is automatically assigned.
Some other means requires special protocol to ensure their right. If
HITACHI did not do this and if they are suddenly claiming their right, I
say "tough luck".

HITACHI was very unclear on this RIGHT issue. I made a conscious letter
to address this point after reading their web site.

Important thing is if HITACHI wish to claim their right, they have to
make convincing argument to us. It is not us to guess where their right
comes from. The burden of proof for their right is on the HITACHI side.

I have no problem removing them if proper procedure are followed. But
using very loose claim by HITACHI as its reason is bad precedents.

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.
Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
wait to install by ftp maintainers.

Are they clearly nicer looking fonts or just an alternative?

Then you should argue that font with cleaner history makes Debian looks
good by socially responsible without damaging its functionality.

Please avoid using words such as "Debian must ...". There is no
imperative here. Just a house keeping to clean stinky socks to the
dump. Tell us you are removing ugly fonts with not-so-nice history
behind, people may consider removing from next release.

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Henning Makholm
our users, I think it is sensible to expect the party claiming
infringement to present a more coherent case first.

I tell history again (see

...

This is not published by HITACHI. That is the problem.

Post by Kenshi Muto
Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
- Stealing of font goes negative prescription

??? I do not understand.

Post by Kenshi Muto
- Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
need to answer something

You mean me. It is their obligation if they want to claim their right.

Post by Kenshi Muto
- Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank

If it is not protected by law, they do not have right.

Post by Kenshi Muto
want to allow to copy/redistribution freely, other font vendors
don't permit. Creating Japanese font is not so cheap work. It
creates a market.

You mean there is financial value. So does any piece of software.

Post by Kenshi Muto
Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.

I do not understand this. If they forget, just shut up or give away any
rights if it existed. Problem is the other way.

Post by Kenshi Muto
But we, Debian Project, need to say our official statement if we
continue to distribute.

I think this happened since you requested as "must".

Post by Kenshi Muto
It's not for Hitachi/Typebank, but for our users and distributors.

I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.

What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.

How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.

I am happy to see them go out of archive as long as the reason is right
one.

Osamu

[Kenshi Muto]

Thanks Osamu for clearing the issue,

At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:12:12 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki
Muto-san, if what Hitachi said is all what they can for asserting their
"right", it is unconvincing and no one shall feel obligated. I think
Hitachi should find proper communication person who understands IP in
legal sense. But I think discussion went off course because we focused
on HITACHI issue too much.

I agree.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Kenshi Muto
One of "More-clearly-free alternative scalable Japanese fonts" is
kochi-mincho/kochi-gothic in sid/sarge. Many Japanese use this
font rather than Watanabe font.
Woody has same name package, but it lefts some problematic glyphs.
As Goto said, fixed packages for woody r2 is already uploaded, and
wait to install by ftp maintainers.

Are they clearly nicer looking fonts or just an alternative?

I think Kochi is nicer looking than Watanabe.
I don't know users who use Watanabe for default screen font since Woody.

Of course, from the view of "just an alternative", Kochi and Watanabe
is different looks. That's all.

Post by Osamu Aoki
Then you should argue that font with cleaner history makes Debian looks
good by socially responsible without damaging its functionality.
Please avoid using words such as "Debian must ...". There is no
imperative here. Just a house keeping to clean stinky socks to the
dump. Tell us you are removing ugly fonts with not-so-nice history
behind, people may consider removing from next release.

Post by Kenshi Muto
I tell history again (see

...
This is not published by HITACHI. That is the problem.

Yes.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Kenshi Muto
Important point is this issue starts from Kochi font author, not from
Hitachi/Typebank. It is easy to attack fault of Hitachi, but I pity
- Stealing of font goes negative prescription

??? I do not understand.

Sorry, I don't familiar with law word.
In the other words, steal from Hitachi/Typebank original font occured
very long time ago. There was no law protection (only license
agreement?) in that time. If Hitachi/Typebank want to sue thief guy,
this act is expired by criminal law/civil law, I think.

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Kenshi Muto
- Because some people heat up this problem, Hitachi/Typebank must
need to answer something

You mean me. It is their obligation if they want to claim their right.

Post by Kenshi Muto
- Right of font is under very poor guard by law. If Hitachi/Typebank

If it is not protected by law, they do not have right.

I think so.
But Japanese court sometime make strange decision :-)

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Kenshi Muto
Hitachi/Typebank seem want to forget this issue.

I do not understand this. If they forget, just shut up or give away any
rights if it existed. Problem is the other way.

Well, this may be difficult for Hitachi/Typebank.
They seem haven't make consensus opinion (especially Hitachi is big company).
Of course they don't tell us "please remind me such a problem"
officialy. Hitachi announced a ambiguous statement relucantly.

Post by Osamu Aoki
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.
How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.

I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.

This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)

Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.

Thanks,

[GOTO Masanori]

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Osamu Aoki
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.
How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.

I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.
This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.

Exactly.

As far as I saw the recognition in Japanese free software community is
"don't use this dirty gray font considered with various law and
issue". AFAIK, almost all Japanese distributers (RedHat, Vine,
Turbolinux, ...) removed these problematic fonts from their current
image. We sometimes discussed other distro developers with this
issue, and our general concensus is: just replace with the alternative
new kochi font family.

Even I heard from some users that they would like to use free fonts in
pease. I considered all these situation, and decided to replace kochi
for stable.

Regards,
-- gotom

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Osamu Aoki
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.
How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.

I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.

You are with me.

Post by GOTO Masanori

Post by Kenshi Muto
This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.

I think Steve or me will not fuss like this if this migration is just an
migration of testing/unstable packages. Maintainer can do anything to
provide best possible packages in all respect including aesthetics.

Post by GOTO Masanori
Exactly.
As far as I saw the recognition in Japanese free software community is
"don't use this dirty gray font considered with various law and
issue". AFAIK, almost all Japanese distributers (RedHat, Vine,
Turbolinux, ...) removed these problematic fonts from their current
image. We sometimes discussed other distro developers with this
issue, and our general concensus is: just replace with the alternative
new kochi font family.

Eh... this is not popularity contest issue. We are talking "stable"
updates. If we remove them by the Hitachi's claim, it set bad
precidents. In the legal world, once people accept some terms for
action under a set of certain conditions, they are expected to do the
same next time. You should read Steve's comment iof this implication.

(Actually, the same logic applie to Hitachi. By not pursuing this kind
of claim previously, they are running risk of loosing right even if they
had it at the first place. I doubt they had any right to start with.)

Post by GOTO Masanori
Even I heard from some users that they would like to use free fonts in
pease. I considered all these situation, and decided to replace kochi
for stable.

They are free to choose any packages in archive.

[Steve Langasek]

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Osamu Aoki
I think if your request was phrased differently, I think the outcome
may have been different.
What we agreed was HITACHI's claim in current shape can not be the
reason to remove package.
How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.

I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.

You are with me.

Post by GOTO Masanori

Post by Kenshi Muto
This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.

I think Steve or me will not fuss like this if this migration is just an
migration of testing/unstable packages. Maintainer can do anything to
provide best possible packages in all respect including aesthetics.

Indeed, I have no objections to removing the fonts from unstable for
whatever reason. I only call into question the rationale for requesting
the fonts' removal from stable.

And it's not for me to decide whether the font packages should be
changed in stable for reasons other than license violations, but I do
think the Stable Release Manager should have the chance to evaluate the
facts of this proposed update.

[Kenshi Muto]

At Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:43:04 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:12:12 +0100,

Post by Osamu Aoki
How we treat package with ugly data (both looks and history) is
different issue.

I want to focus second issue. For me, what Hitachi talking is not
important.
This action starts and continues from Opensource software community in
Japan, not from Hitachi/Typebank. This action is not same as SCO :-)
Our (OSS comunity in Japan) rough consensus is "we don't use thing
from dirty source". Watanabe use dirty source (LABO123), Kochi in
Woody uses Watanabe.
There isn't any legal problem in this matter, but we hope to clean
dirty source ourself.

Are there any more comments about this point of view?

[Steve Langasek]

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
Unless Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is
in the rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do
not constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the
legal counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but
there are other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides
the letter of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the
parties' pockets.

If the party who is using HITACHI font is commercial entity, they may
likely to pay some money to avoid costly litigation if settlement
includes no actual financial impact. It does not even say how much they
gained.
I do not think the Japanese law is created in a much different manner.

The phase of whether legal or illegal was really old issue.
LABO-123 32dot was fully-copied without license agreement from Hitachi.
Watanabe font/xfonts-intl-japanese-big(<1.2.1) is copied from LABO-123
as is.
Kochi font was copied some part from Watanabe.
IMHO Japanese font stands very weak about legal basis, but LABO-123
creates by license violation.

What license does it violate?

Post by Kenshi Muto
Dead-copy should be removed also. Hitachi/Typebank continue to sell
original font.

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
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
that needs to be corrected in a stable release.

Post by Kenshi Muto
And kochi font upstream author recommends to use new font strongly.
Do we ignore his intent also?
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.

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
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?

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".

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi Steve,

Post by Steve Langasek
What license does it violate?

None. But let's defocus from Hitachi.

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by Kenshi Muto
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.

Post by Steve Langasek
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".

Post by Steve Langasek
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.

Post by Steve Langasek
that needs to be corrected in a stable release.

Maybe not this request directly.

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by Kenshi Muto
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.

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by Kenshi Muto
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.

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Steve Langasek
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.

Post by Steve Langasek
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: <***@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.

Osamu

[Henning Makholm]

Post by Osamu Aoki
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.

I was talking (or at least, thinking) about unstable/testing. I think
removing from *stable* is a much more serious matter. It ought only to
happen if a plausible case can be made that keeping the package/file
in the distribution can actively harm users and/or mirror operators.

As a concrete example, suppose that somebody has built a mission
critical system around woody 3.0r1. Part of this system is scripts
that have the names of the offending fonts hardcoded. Now the user
wants to prepare a new machine for running his system. He boots a
minimal woody system from cd-rom and proceeds to do a network install
of the rest of woody 3.0r3. Oops - the fonts his existing scripts look
for are missing. That is exactly what the tag "stable" implies should
*not* happen, or at least should only happen when we genuinely have no
choice. One can expect to need to tweak one's scripts when moving from
one stable release to another, but it should not happen with point
releases.
--
Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any
procedure statement that the kind and type
of each actual parameter be compatible with the
kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter."

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hello,

Post by Henning Makholm
I was talking (or at least, thinking) about unstable/testing. I think
removing from *stable* is a much more serious matter. It ought only to
happen if a plausible case can be made that keeping the package/file
in the distribution can actively harm users and/or mirror operators.

We are handing over the worries on the mirror distributors hands;
and Debian JP project is informed that at least one distributor
is distributing a modified copy of Debian as Debian CD after
removing the specific fonts.

Whether we should do it in upstream is a different matter, but
take an example; publishing a book with a Debian CD on it
with the discussed font included will not be acceptable corporate
behavior; thus they will remove the fonts from their distribution
of Debian.



As to your argument of having packages removed breaking scripts;
that would not be a problem for kochi, as long as kochi-replacement
fonts are installed to stable release.

Other fonts are problematic.


regards,
junichi

[Henning Makholm]

Post by Junichi Uekawa
We are handing over the worries on the mirror distributors hands;

It seems to be widely accepted in the thread that no legal worry that
may be handed over to to anyone has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

Post by Junichi Uekawa
and Debian JP project is informed that at least one distributor
is distributing a modified copy of Debian as Debian CD after
removing the specific fonts.

That's their right, as long as they do not claim that the CDs are
official Debian images.

Post by Junichi Uekawa
As to your argument of having packages removed breaking scripts;
that would not be a problem for kochi, as long as kochi-replacement
fonts are installed to stable release.

It *is* a problem for my hypothetical user that he has to wade through
his scripts and add "-replacement" in various places. And who is even
telling him that he needs to? It is possible that the fonts are only
used in special cases, which are not among the one he tests before
putting his new machine into production.

[Junichi Uekawa]

Post by Henning Makholm
It *is* a problem for my hypothetical user that he has to wade through
his scripts and add "-replacement" in various places. And who is even
telling him that he needs to? It is possible that the fonts are only
used in special cases, which are not among the one he tests before
putting his new machine into production.

Hmm? it doesn't need -replacement; it should be an in-place replacement
that is only 'visible' to the eye, not code.


regards,
junichi

[Steve Langasek]

Post by Osamu Aoki

Post by Steve Langasek
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.
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.

As long as everyone agrees that there is nothing illegal about Debian's
current distribution of the fonts and that this is not the reason for
the removal request, I don't really have anything else to add. I defer
to the Stable Release Manager's judgement on the question of whether to
accept these particular updates.

Cheers,

[Martin Schulze]

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by Kenshi Muto
ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
watanabe-vfont
ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt)
ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt)
from the stable distribution due to license problems, right?
That is possible.

I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
problems with these fonts.
The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,
seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent. Unless
Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is in the
rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do not
constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the legal
counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but there are
other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides the letter
of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the parties'
pockets.
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.

So... the situation won't be changed for r2 and we can discuss this
for r3.

Regards,

Joey

[GOTO Masanori]

At Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:08:24 +0100,

Post by Martin Schulze

Post by Steve Langasek
I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that there are licensing
problems with these fonts.
The official reply from Hitachi on this question, as posted at
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00323.html>,
seems quite unambiguous: they acknowledge that there are no laws on the
books, in Japan or elsewhere, which give them grounds to claim that
these fonts infringe their intellectual property rights. Rather, they
have referenced previous out-of-court settlements as precedent. Unless
Japanese law is created in a much different manner than it is in the
rest of the world, the results of out-of-court settlements do not
constitute legal precedents; they may provide insight into the legal
counsel's assessment of their chances of winning a suit, but there are
other factors that contribute to such an assessment besides the letter
of the law -- most notably, the respective depths of the parties'
pockets.
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.

So you expose our debian users to font right war. It's not fair and
admirable attitude.

In Japan, making fonts need a lot of money. There are font market.
Font vendor claims such infringement. Font right is difficult
problem, but AFAIK in Japan there is a precedent that said not to
sell a pirated fonts.

In addition, font right is like "design right", not intellectual
property.

Post by Martin Schulze
So... the situation won't be changed for r2 and we can discuss this
for r3.

Please replace the newer package which have been queue in r3. Keep in
mind that ttf-kochi-* fonts are widely used in Japan.

Regards,
-- gotom

[John Hasler]

Post by GOTO Masanori
In addition, font right is like "design right", not intellectual
property.

Please explain "design right".

[GOTO Masanori]

At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:44:48 -0600,

Post by John Hasler

Post by GOTO Masanori
In addition, font right is like "design right", not intellectual
property.

Please explain "design right".

In this sentence, I emphasized that font right is not intellectual
property. And I described: "_like_ design right".

At least in Japan, there is design right (if your don't know, try to
find in google).

However, font right is hard problem. Currently there is no definitive
law or right in Japan. "copyright" or "design right" is closer than
intellectual property, but copyright is difficult to apply for fonts,
and fonts may not be registered under design right. But font vendor
have appealed that fonts should be protected under appropriate law.
This complicated situation makes this issue more difficult.

Regards,
-- gotom

[John Hasler]

At least in Japan, there is design right (if your don't know, try to find
in google).
From what I can tell the nearest thing the US has to Japanese "design

right" is "design patent". AFAIK you cannot get a US design patent on a
font.

Currently there is no definitive law or right in Japan. "copyright" or
"design right" is closer than intellectual property...

How is "design right" not "intellectual property"?

...but copyright is difficult to apply for fonts, and fonts may not be
registered under design right. But font vendor have appealed that fonts
should be protected under appropriate law. This complicated situation
makes this issue more difficult.

You seem to be saying that fonts are not protected under present Japanese
law but that font vendors are trying to change that. How does that
situation differ from that elsewhere in the world where "intellectual
property owners" are trying to broaden patent and copyright law? Are they
trying to get _retroactive_ protection? Are they likely to succeed?

This complicated situation makes this issue more difficult.

I don't see why Debian should concern itself with possible future changes
in Japanese law.

[Philip Charles]

Post by John Hasler
You seem to be saying that fonts are not protected under present Japanese
law but that font vendors are trying to change that. How does that
situation differ from that elsewhere in the world where "intellectual
property owners" are trying to broaden patent and copyright law? Are they
trying to get _retroactive_ protection? Are they likely to succeed?

Post by GOTO Masanori
This complicated situation makes this issue more difficult.

I don't see why Debian should concern itself with possible future changes
in Japanese law.

Careful. Different cultures mean different legal processes and concepts,
some of which will be quite alien to us.

Phil.

--
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand
[phone] Fax [phone] Mobile [phone]
***@copyleft.co.nz - preferred. ***@debian.org
I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz

[Steve Langasek]

Post by GOTO Masanori
At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:44:48 -0600,

Post by John Hasler

Post by GOTO Masanori
In addition, font right is like "design right", not intellectual
property.

Please explain "design right".

In this sentence, I emphasized that font right is not intellectual
property. And I described: "_like_ design right".
At least in Japan, there is design right (if your don't know, try to
find in google).

A design right is also a form of intellectual property, as that term
("intellectual property") is used in English. Copyright is one form of
intellectual property.

Post by GOTO Masanori
However, font right is hard problem. Currently there is no definitive
law or right in Japan. "copyright" or "design right" is closer than
intellectual property, but copyright is difficult to apply for fonts,
and fonts may not be registered under design right. But font vendor
have appealed that fonts should be protected under appropriate law.
This complicated situation makes this issue more difficult.

If their appeal is successful, and Japanese law is amended to grant the
requested font rights, I would have no objections to honoring those
rights in the future. I do not agree that we should voluntarily respect
such claims of font rights on fonts that were created *before* such a
law was enacted.

[Osamu Aoki]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 02:30:41PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
...

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by GOTO Masanori
At least in Japan, there is design right (if your don't know, try to
find in google).

A design right is also a form of intellectual property, as that term
("intellectual property") is used in English. Copyright is one form of
intellectual property.

Let's not discuss to much of legal situation in this manner. If there
is a claim to be made by HITACHI, the burden shall be on HITACHI not
MUTO-san. Communicating with sufficient information is the burden
HITACHI shall bear.

Having said it, my conclusion is HITACHI did not provided sufficient
information to force Debian to stop distributing affected fonts.

But if they are super ugly fonts with no useful purpose, we may still
want to remove them no matter what HITACHI's claim. (If release rule
does not have this as a part of the current rule, we can add it.)

Osamu

[Henning Makholm]

Post by Osamu Aoki
But if they are super ugly fonts with no useful purpose, we may still
want to remove them no matter what HITACHI's claim. (If release rule
does not have this as a part of the current rule, we can add it.)

Ugliness and lack of useful purpose should not, by far, be sufficient
reasons to remove something from a released stable version of Debian.
There's a reason why it is called stable, you know.

(Do you need to shout each time you mention Hitachi?)

[Osamu Aoki]

Post by Henning Makholm

Post by Osamu Aoki
But if they are super ugly fonts with no useful purpose, we may still
want to remove them no matter what HITACHI's claim. (If release rule
does not have this as a part of the current rule, we can add it.)

Ugliness and lack of useful purpose should not, by far, be sufficient
reasons to remove something from a released stable version of Debian.
There's a reason why it is called stable, you know.

I know that is the current rule. But any rule is subject to change with
good reasoning.

I think the original proposer of removal was too focused on "removal"
and forgot to put good reasoning to do so. my complain is there. My
frustration is hapless PR by Hitachi.

In my honest assessment, Hitachi has not much chance to win their claim
of right. At the same time, no one wishes to bother themselves to
maintain the right to keep using them either. Life has better thing to
do.

Post by Henning Makholm
(Do you need to shout each time you mention Hitachi?)

... No.

Osamu

[GOTO Masanori]

At Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:30:41 -0600,

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by GOTO Masanori
At least in Japan, there is design right (if your don't know, try to
find in google).

A design right is also a form of intellectual property, as that term
("intellectual property") is used in English. Copyright is one form of
intellectual property.

Ah, thanks for your explanation, actually I don't understand the term
in English word.

Post by Steve Langasek

Post by GOTO Masanori
However, font right is hard problem. Currently there is no definitive
law or right in Japan. "copyright" or "design right" is closer than
intellectual property, but copyright is difficult to apply for fonts,
and fonts may not be registered under design right. But font vendor
have appealed that fonts should be protected under appropriate law.
This complicated situation makes this issue more difficult.

If their appeal is successful, and Japanese law is amended to grant the
requested font rights, I would have no objections to honoring those
rights in the future. I do not agree that we should voluntarily respect
such claims of font rights on fonts that were created *before* such a
law was enacted.

You only cut off just the part of law issue. Original font holder
(Hitachi) claimed not to leave its derived fonts alone. Ttf-kochi
font author in woody decided not to use their original font. Why
don't we follow their original author intension? Even debian in woody
infringes their original author's intension.

Regards,
-- gotom

[Osamu Aoki]

Original font holder (Hitachi) claimed not to leave its derived fonts
alone.

Did Hitachi prove that they have exclusive "ownership" right? I do not
think so. So they are just creator without any right. What ever they
say loosely now are just noise to Debian. We can not act on it.

Ttf-kochi font author in woody decided not to use their original font.
Why don't we follow their original author intension? Even debian in
woody infringes their original author's intension.

Yes we are defying wish of Ttf-kochi font author. Debian sometimes
follow its reasoning as I see it. Debian is not an quiet conformist
with good reason. "Precidence" is the issue.

Osamu

[Kenshi Muto]

Hi,

At Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:30:26 +0100,

Post by Kenshi Muto
ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10
ttf-xwatanabe-mincho
watanabe-vfont
ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt)
ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt)
from the stable distribution due to license problems, right?

Some are yes, but some are no.

These are must be removed (please see bugs of ftp.debian.org):

ttf-xwatanabe-mincho (Bug#214587)
watanabe-vfont (Bug#214399)
ttf-xtt-wadalab-gothic (source ttf-xtt) (Bug#214395)
ttf-xtt-watanabe-mincho (source ttf-xtt) (Bug#214400)

And this package is must be removed from only Woody (already fixed in
Sarge/Sid):

xfonts-intl-japanese-big (Bug#215371)

Post by Kenshi Muto
ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10

ttf-kochi-gothic
ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10

But I can't found them anywhere. Please describe about the status,
Goto-san.

Thanks,
- --
Kenshi Muto
***@debian.org

[GOTO Masanori]

At Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:22:37 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto
And this package is must be removed from only Woody (already fixed in
xfonts-intl-japanese-big (Bug#215371)

I think it's good idea to update this package to the latest, instead
of removing from woody. Milan, do you think about this?

Post by Kenshi Muto

Post by Kenshi Muto
ttf-kochi-mincho
ttf-kochi-mincho-naga10

ttf-kochi-gothic
ttf-kochi-gothic-naga10
But I can't found them anywhere. Please describe about the status,
Goto-san.

I duploaded some days before, now it's in ftp-master queue/new.

Regards,
-- gotom

[Milan Zamazal]

GM> At Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:22:37 +0900,

Post by Kenshi Muto
And this package is must be removed from only Woody (already
xfonts-intl-japanese-big (Bug#215371)

GM> I think it's good idea to update this package to the latest,
GM> instead of removing from woody. Milan, do you think about this?

If only japanese-big is to be removed, then intlfonts must be removed as
whole, since .orig.tar.gz contains the offending fonts. For this reason
I've uploaded a woody update of the package (intlfonts_1.2.1-0.woody.1)
several days ago, that can replace the current woody version.

Regards,

Milan Zamazal