Slashdot Mirror
Legal Impediments to Using F/OSS Screenshots?
Software Illustrated asks: "When publishing books on how to use Linux desktop software, the legal/IP review process to make sure we aren't infringing on the property rights of 3rd party sources should be easier than for books about proprietary/closed source software, right? Microsoft makes it easy as long as you comply with their guideline. I didn't think it would be necessary to get permission to publish a screenshot of, for instance, the GNOME gconf-editor. But that is just what our legal/IP review team is pursuing. Is this necessary?"
"If not, then how do you explain to a by-the-book contract administrator that the rules are different with GNOME? I find myself dealing with exactly this problem right now, resulting in a book ready for publication being put on hold. Is the solution here to get GNOME (and KDE for that matter) to publish their own permission guidelines ala Microsoft? Seems counterintuitive to the spirit of the F/OSS movement. But doing this sure would grease the skids for publishers. Has anyone else dealt with this issue?"
I'd say just do it...who is going to sue you exactly, and with what money and to what end?
So let me get this right.. your lawyers are advising you to do something, and you come to *slashdot* for a second opinion?
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
Of course it is; how else are your legal team going to justify their salaries?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
If you are publishing in the U.S., Fair Use should apply in this situation. It is for a review/criticism/educational purpose to take the screenshot and comment on the program's use. See Wikipedia article on Fair Use
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
the GPL doesn't have anything to do with it. The GPL is only relevant in the copying of software code and executable binaries not side effects unless those side effects are program code or executable binaries.
BZZT, wrong. The GPL governs acceptable use of copyrighted material. As others have pointed out, it specifically includes (and makes no restrictions on) "use" when that use is governed under copyright, and specifically does not include use that is outside the scope of copyright.
So, unless you're talking about trademark, there aren't any copyright issues in reproducing the output of GPLed programs.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
This question may seem completely unrelated to the story, but I'll ask anyway. Why is Windows shown so little on TV, while the Mac is shown so much? If you watch a commercial where a website is shown on a computer screen, it's almost always a Mac interface. Are the producers afraid MS will sue? If so, why aren't they afraid Apple will sue? Or do they just like Macs better in Hollywood?
-William Brendel
They sure act like they do.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.