Re: [Gimp-developer] M$ partners claim, they own property rights to GIMP

[Dominik Tabisz <d tabisz gmail com>]

> Microsoft doesn't really have a product that competes with GIMP, unless
> you consider something like "Paint" a competitor.  Adobe might have a
> reason to not want GIMP on Windows, but that's a lot less true of
> Microsoft.
In a sense You're right. Gimp is usually considered to be Adobe PS competitor.
> From other point of view GNU is competitor of M$, and Gimp is
sometimes considered as part of GNU. afaik Adobe is not so hostile
towards Free Software as Microsoft.
 Take into account, that we have knowledge about blocking Gimp, and
also Ubuntu iso images.


> Also, didn't the original message indicate that the copyright complaint
> was against "setup.exe"?  In other words, isn't it possible that the
> actual complaint (valid or not) is against the installer, not the GIMP?

I'm wondering about this too. Whether something in Gimp 2.4.2
installer could trigger some webrobot used to detect "piracy"?
Maybe compiling Gimp for windows require some propertiary M$ library?
I don't know, probably people on this list are more capable to say:
"Yes, compiling for Win use libraryXYZ", or "No, compiling Gimp for
Win don't involve using anything non free".


> I find this kind of legal bullying incredibly frustrating; if some entity
> is going to claim infringement, they should at least have to give some
> indication of what they believe the infringement is.  It's possible that
> they *did* give that information and it just wasn't passed on by the
> file serving companies, but it's hard to know what to even do without
> knowing what the complaint is.

Honestly filesharing company is probably very surprised, that someone
dared to question whole situation. After complaint they informed who
gave them notice. (of course with addition of notice, that
correspondence is confidential, and similar threats)
 It is something like Kafka's scenario: You're charged without right
to know what the cause is. In fact, filesharing service is covering
their ass (they blocked that file, so no one can charge them). Any
dispute is directed to marketly, which don't respond.

> Could this issue be brought to the FSF or EFF legal team, to see if they
> can make progress on it?
I think this might be necessary.

Thanks for support and advice
Dominik Tabisz