From kde-edu Tue Feb 15 17:02:02 2005 From: Jason Harris Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:02:02 +0000 To: kde-edu Subject: Re: [kde-edu]: Possible legal issue with KVocTrain Message-Id: <200502151002.02678.kstars () 30doradus ! org> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-edu&m=110848683510650 Hello, I am assuming that Langenscheidt hold no copyright claim on the langen2kvtml script itself, right? Was their proprietary format reverse-engineered? If so, I think we have nothing to worry about; there's nothing wrong with writing software that can parse data in a proprietary format (especially since there's no equivalent of the DMCA in Germany yet). Jason On Tuesday 15 February 2005 09:00 am, Peter Hedlund wrote: > 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 -- ------------------------------- KStars: KDE Desktop Planetarium http://edu.kde.org/kstars _______________________________________________ kde-edu mailing list kde-edu@mail.kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-edu