[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-edu
Subject:    [kde-edu]: Possible legal issue with KVocTrain
From:       Peter Hedlund <hedlund () scripps ! edu>
Date:       2005-02-15 15:59:50
Message-ID: 200502150800.15627.hedlund () scripps ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi all,

Through Ewald Arnold, the original author of KVocTrain, we have received a 
request from the German publisher Langenscheidt to remove a piece of code 
currently in KVocTrain, a program in the edu module currently maintained by 
me. The code in question is a Perl script called langen2kvtml that converts 
files from a proprietary format used by vocabulary learning software produced 
by Langenscheidt to our own kvtml (xml) format.

More information about this request follows below, but I would with this like 
to start a discussion about the removal request and also present my opinion 
on the matter.

Having said that IANAL, my opinion is that we should deny the request and keep 
the code in question. The decisive issue for me is a user's right to his 
data. Using the Langenscheidt software the user can create his/her own data 
files. The user has a right to the data in these files. We provide a 
possibility for the user to access his/her data and use it with other 
software. Langenscheidt's argument is that the code can be used to illegally 
modify and distribute their copyrighted material. Even though this is to a 
certain extent correct, the user's right to his own data files is greater.

Thanks,
Peter

=========
This is Ewald Arnold's first message to me:

yesterday I got a mail from Langenscheidt (www.langenscheidt.de). They are a 
german publishing house and sell dictionaries and vocabulary trainers. 
Obviouly some user kept them busy and confused for a while when he asked them 
for support for the langen2kvtml script which is part of kvctrain. As a 
result they asked me to remove the script from further publications.

I am not legally experienced enough to tell if this demand can stand a legal 
dispute but I personally don't want to find out myself ;-) Since I received 
several mails claiming that the script didn't work for quite a long time 
there is no loss anyway when removing it. I also ask you to remove it from 
the documentation. 

Maybe the script has been removed some rather long time ago and the 
documentation has not been updated. Maybe this was the reason for this user 
to ask Langenscheidt instead of one of the people around kvoc.

This topic in general might also be worth to discuss on the list. It is 
certainly a bad idea to spread converted files. But from my point of view it 
should be ok to provide converters for the reason of interoperability. But 
one should also tell the people not to ask for support at the wrong place.

=========
This is my response to him:

This is of course an interesting problem. As I see it they got fed up with 
being asked to support a product that is not theirs (the script). As a result 
they asked for its removal.

However (but IANAL), to me the script is not different from any other import 
filter for any other file type. From what I can tell by visiting the 
vokabeln.de site it is possible to create your own files in their format 
using their software. It seems obvious that blocking the use of a proprietary 
file format, take the MS .doc format as an example, in competitive products 
is not possible. Thus, we would be in our right to provide this functionality 
to our users in the same way other applications help users switch away from 
the competition. This would argue in favor of keeping the script. I don't 
think we should be too intimidated by their request.

Other things to consider:

1. Neither of us is the original author of the script. I don't know how that 
affects our position.
2. The question of whether the script works or not. I haven't tested this, but 
I know there is at least one bug report filed.
3. We are very late in a release cycle and changes to the documentation should 
be very carefully considered.

==========
Ewald then provided this additional information:
> result they asked for its removal.

he also wrote that they decline *every* request to use their files or formats. 
I have been thinkig about writing them again to re-think their point of view 
regarding open source and some potential advertisment for free. What I 
already did in my response was to point him to the fact that they don't offer 
products for free systems like linux even if there seems to be demand ;-)

> help users switch away from the competition. This would argue in favor of
> keeping the script. I don't think we should be too intimidated by their

The point is that the script is used to convert "their" files which are 
covered by copyrights and only intended for use with their products. Similar 
to CDs and other content. In the meanwhile virtually every tool to copy CDs 
is forbidden by law.

> 1. Neither of us is the original author of the script. I don't know how
> that affects our position.

probably not as it became part of the distribution.

> 2. The question of whether the script works or not. I haven't tested this,
> but I know there is at least one bug report filed.

from the various mails I conclude that they changed their file format at least 
once.

> Do you want me to take this entire discussion to the mailing list? I think
> that would be a good idea.

yes, certainly. This topic is too important for a decision by a single person 
and of general interest. It also affects the KDE project as a whole. In the 
KDE community there should be some persons with more legal knowledge and 
experience. Probably the people at Langenscheidt can be convinced to change 
their mind when they see their benefit. I personally would prefer some kind 
of permission, even it were not necessary from a legal point.
_______________________________________________
kde-edu mailing list
kde-edu@mail.kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-edu
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]