Kannada, Kannadiga, Kannadigaru, Karnataka,

Kannadigarella ondaagi Kannadavannu ulisona, kalisona and belesona

Dr.U.B.Pavanaja writes- BARAHA VASU is giving WRONG INFORMATION to press and to kannadigas. Also VASU is quoting a WRONG COURT CASE to prove what has done by stealing IPR from AKRUTHI is correct.

BARAHA Vasu’s interview to Deccan Herald in 2004

and Dr. U. B. Pavanaja’s comments

Vasu’s interview to Deccan Herald and comments by Dr. U. B. Pavanaja

Vasu gave an interview to Deccan Herald during his visit to Bangalore in June 2004. Here are some excerpts and my comments on them:-

 

> “Then, I, along with Ganaka Parishad and the State Government worked to bring Kannada software for official use”, he (Vasu) said.


I don’t remember any of such efforts by Sheshadri Vasu. In fact Vasu was very reluctant to implement the GoK standard for font and keyboard. There was a heated argument between Dr Panditharadhya and K T Chandrashekharan, father of Vasu, in this connection. All along the time Shasthry, Narasimha Murthy and Panditharadhya were advocating that Baraha killed Kannada while Nudi saved it!   Vasu did implement the keyboard and font standards after repeated appeals by Shrinatha Shasthry and Narasimha Murthy.

> Baraha 4.0 was the first software that was implemented in Government offices with font styles.


I don’t think this statement of Sheshadri Vasu is true. There were many Kannada software being used in state govt much much before KGP, Nudi or Baraha came into existence.


> But the Ganaka Parishad and the State Government have introduced Nudi software as a benchmark system.


If Vasu were to introduce the GoK standards much earlier than the release of Kalitha (Nudi), Nudi would not have come into existence.


VASU said:  > Unfortunately for me, the government is insisting the use of Nudi software.


Why should be unfortunate to him? He is not selling Baraha.


> While Baraha has fulfilled the terms and conditions put forth by the Government, including stipulations such as keyboard and transliteration, I wonder why they are forcing departments to use only Nudi”, he said. One of Baraha’s many advantages, according to Vasu, is that it allows a person who knows Kannada to type it in English fonts. He felt preference of software (Baraha or Nudi) should be left to end user.


Why the choice should be only between Nudi and Baraha, both of them are obsolete in the current and future time where Unicode is the world standard?

Actually the choice should be between Windows XP/2003, Mac, Linux, Solaris, Java Desktop, Unix, etc. all are having Unicode compliance.


Meeting with Vasu in June 2004

Vasu was felicitated by Upasana in Bangalore during his visit in June 2004. I met him during that function. I discussed many things in general like Unicode features, facility needed in Baraha to convert RTF and HTML documents into Unicode, etc. Casually I asked him where from he is getting the fonts for his Baraha package. As per his answer, there is an artist in Bangalore who draws the shapes on paper and sends them to him. He (Vasu) scans, digitizes and  makes them into fonts. I did not discuss anything about the Akruti font issue.

_______________________________________________

PLEASE READ THESE KANNADIGAS will know what VASU saying to DECCAN HERALD in 2004 is FALSE.


VASU of BARAHA was NOT TRUTHFUL to reporters in 2004. Now also !!!

SHABDRATNA, the first Kannada Word processing Software developed in 1987 by SRG Systems. Now SRG is not in business because of NUDI and KAGAPA and BARAHA.

NUDI  Fonts has COPIED BARAHA Fonts

VASU is the CULPRIT here for KSD


SHABDRATNA, the first Kannada Word processing Software was
launched by the then Director of Karnataka Govt. Computer
Center during January 1987. This was used extensively by
almost all Offices & Depts of the Govt. of Karnataka.

SRG Systems Letter to V. M. Kumaraswamy in 2004.

___________________________________________________________

VASU sends the following email to kannadigas all over the world.

WHY ? Because VASU got Caught for STEALING the IPR.

This following information is also FALSE according to some sources.

___________________________

Dear friends,

Recently I have read some forwarded emails mentioning that Baraha has used fonts copied from other software. This statement is not true and I would like to clarify the same in this mail. As of Baraha 6.0 (to be released shortly), the following fonts are available for use.

BRH Amerikannada

BRH Bengaluru

BRH Kailasam

BRH Kannada

BRH Kasturi

BRH Sirigannada

BRH Vijay

BRH Devanagari

BRH Tamil

BRH Telugu

BRH Malayalam

All the above fonts are designed and hand-written on the paper by the artist Sri. Lingadevaru and digitized (conversion to TrueType Fonts) by me. “Except for “BRH Kannada” all the other Kannada fonts are totally new styles which don’t exist in any other Kannada software“. Most of the Kannada font styles that we see on computers today existed and used in the books, magazines and news papers much earlier. The “BRH Kannada” style follows one such classic type face that was used much before the computers came into existence as shown in the following examples.

Gnana Gangotri – 1971

Amara Chitra Katha – 1978

The above style is a kind of de-facto standard for Kannada, which is used by almost all the publications today. Every Kannada font vendor has created this style using re-digitization (re-digitization is the process of creating a digital font based on an existing font either by scanning a printed letter or extracting from an existing font) and has given his own name. The following are some of the fonts, which have this style. There are many other generic type face styles for Kannada, which can be found in all the software packages.

BRH Kannada – Baraha

Nudi Akshara 09 – Nudi

AkrutiKndPadmini – Akruti

Shree-Kan-0850 – ShreeLipi

SHREE_DECCAN – Prajavani

KPNEWS – Kannada Prabha

Kan Badami – PhonScript Systems

so on…

All these fonts use the style shown in the above examples. We may find a few minor differences, when we compare these fonts. In most cases, this difference is introduced automatically during the digitization process. Some vendors deliberately introduce a few changes to certain glyphs, to be able differentiate from others. Some times, a different character or line spacing is used so that the font looks different when displayed on the screen or printed. Some times, the font size, thickness is modified to give a different look. Whatever may be the difference, they all derive from a common design, which cannot belong to any one individual or company.

The common font styles that existed much before the computers cannot be copyright protected by any one person or company. This is the rule followed for English fonts. The English fonts such as “Arial”, “Times New Roman”, e.t.c belong to this generic category. Here only the brand names such as “Arial” is copyright protected and that name can’t be used for other styles. But the actual character styles (or outlines) in the Arial font may be copied and re-produced by anybody. Font copyright laws vary from one country to another. In Germany for example, only the new font styles that are created after 1981 can be copyright protected by filing a special registered design with the patent offices. I am not aware if any such laws exist for fonts in India.

USA courts have long back decided that fonts can’t be copyrighted AT ALL! Here, the digital outline can never be protected. According to them there can’t be any original font style, because, every font is created by slightly modifying some other font, and there aren’t really “new” font designs! See the following excerpts from the law…

“The Copyright Office has decided that digitized representations of typeface designs are not registerable under the Copyright Act because they do not constitute original works of authorship. The digitized representations of typefaces are neither original computer programs (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101), nor original databases, nor any other original work of authorship.”

So, in a font, the name, any programming code not describing the font design are all that can be copyrighted. This leaves the door open in the USA to have anyone pay for the output of each character from a typesetter and re-digitize it or extract the design from a font program (and rename it), easily duplicating the design. Most foundries have very similar fonts derived from work largely designed by others. More information about font/copyright can be found at http://ssifonts.com/Myths.htm

When I started developing Kannada software in 1998, I had no knowledge of fonts at all. I had to do a lot of research and analysis on various Kannada fonts freely available in the Internet, which helped me to understand the current technology and the various issues. I am sure the other software vendors created their software only after doing such a research. This is not against any law.


Some Kannada software vendors complained that Baraha has hurt their business because of its free nature. I still believe that the only way Kannada can compete with English is by a user-friendly, quality, free software. If not me, some other individual would have done the same work later. It is unfortunate that no Kannada software vendor utilized this great opportunity. The initial version of Baraha was just an experiment (not so serious…), which I wanted to share with my family and friends. I didn’t know it would become so popular and used by many people. When Baraha gained popularity, I introduced new Kannada fonts in the versions that followed, as mentioned above. I could have easily re-produced the common font styles that existed in other software and competed with them. Instead, I came up with only new styles, which didn’t exist before. My intention is only to provide a free facility for the basic documentation needs of Kannada. I have focused more on standardization issues and portability of data to various formats and Operating Systems, which was ignored (deliberately for business interests?) by other software vendors. Since I don’t have any business interest regarding Baraha, the only motivation for me is quality, usability, portability and the interest in Kannada. Through Baraha, I have made a lot of friends throughout the world, which are more valuable for me than the financial benefits.

Baraha is not a rocket technology! I have simply put together many things that existed already. While doing so, I haven’t violated any copyright laws concerning font software.

Many software vendors and individuals have created Kannada software either out of business interests or personal interest in Kannada culture. Whatever may be the reason, my personal thanks to all of them because they formed the foundation for Kannada in IT. They kept Kannada alive so that it can be rejuvenated today. The credit goes to software companies such as C-DAC, ShreeLipi, Akruti, KGP and many others. KGP did a good work by standardizing Kannada fonts and the keyboard. Some individuals such as Sri. Kasturi Rangachar and Sri. Vishweshwara Dixit here in USA, had attempted to create Kannada software much before the introduction of Baraha. The list goes on… Without the efforts of above companies and Individuals, Kannada on computers would not have grown to the extent it is today.

-Vasu

______________________________

_____________________________________

Dr. U. B. Pavanaja’s comments on VASU’s ABOVE assertions:
 Vasu’s justification and the realities

With this background let me discuss a bit of what Vasu has written in a document and widely circulated in mailing lists. This document is also present in his Baraha discussion group (groups.msn.com/baraha). Let me quote from this document-

—————– Begin ———————————

USA courts have long back decided that fonts can’t be copyrighted AT ALL! Here, the digital outline can never be protected. According to them there can’t be any original font style, because, every font is created by slightly modifying some other font, and there aren’t really “new” font designs! See the following excerpts from the law…

“The Copyright Office has decided that digitized representations of typeface designs are not registerable under the Copyright Act because they do not constitute original works of authorship. The digitized representations of typefaces are neither original computer programs (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 101), nor original databases, nor any other original work of authorship.”

So, in a font, the name, any programming code not describing the font design are all that can be copyrighted. This leaves the door open in the USA to have anyone pay for the output of each character from a typesetter and re-digitize it or extract the design from a font program (and rename it), easily duplicating the design. Most foundries have very similar fonts derived from work largely designed by others. More information about font/copyright can be found at http://ssifonts.com/Myths.htm

———————- End —————————-

Vasu is very cleverly and conveniently quoting from a web-site put up in the year 1997 and has not been updated afterwards.

There is a reason for this site not being updated afterwards. This refers to the classic legal battle between Adobe and SSI. Southern Software Inc. (SSI) used to copy and rename fonts from Adobe and others. They thought they were safe from prosecution because, though they had directly copied the points that define the shapes from Adobe’s fonts, they had moved all the points just slightly so they were not technically identical. Nevertheless, in his 1998 judgment, the judge determined that the computer code had been copied:

The evidence presented shows that there is some creativity in designing the font software programs. While the glyph dictates to a certain extent what points the editor must choose, it does not dictate every point that must be chosen. Adobe has shown that font editors make creative choices as to what points to select based on the image in front of them on the computer screen. The code is determined directly from the selection of the points. Thus, any copying of the points is copying of literal expression, that is, in essence, copying of the computer code itself.

SSI lost the legal battle at the courts. Judgment was in favor of Adobe. Hence SSI did not update their web-site.

Vasu is conveniently quoting from this web-site. One can read in detail about this case in the following web-sites:-

http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.ph…UNESCO_Font_Lic

http://directory.serifmagazine.com/Ethics_…/judgement.php4

http://www.ipcounselors.com/19980309.htm

When we conducted a opentype font workshop at Bangalore during March 2003, there was a talk on IPR issues related to fonts by Lawrence Liang, who is an expert on cyber laws. He had discussed this Adobe vs SSI case.

_______________________________________________________

November 10, 2007 - Posted by | Baraha, Sheshadri Vasu

1 Comment »

  1. […] post: Dr.U.B.Pavanaja writes- BARAHA VASU is giving WRONG INFORMATION to … Share and […]

    Pingback by Dr.U.B.Pavanaja writes- BARAHA VASU is giving WRONG INFORMATION to … | India Updates | August 2, 2009 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: