On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It appears as a result of this decision we might be able to point to a
third party repository as a alternative to the Fluendo codecs. We had
a long discussion in Fedora Project Board list before and there has
been no consensus so far in this issue even assuming this is a legally
valid solution. There was questions raised about whether this violates
the GPL license and I have received clarification from FSF that it
would not (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF).
I would like to get comments on whether folks here are favorable to
pointing to a third party repository from codec buddy (with
appropriate warnings and disclaimers). If this is considered something
we wanted to do we will consult with Red Hat legal to verify that is a
legally safe choice for us. Comments?
The was this needs to be approached is just like all the other Features
we're trying to develop.
1) Acknowledge that the "scope" of what was supposed to be Codec Buddy 6
months ago *may have changed* as a result of the court decision that
Rahul mentioned.
2) Have someone who cares enough about this particular feature commit
themselves to being the owner, and commit themselves to participating in
the feature process as run by John Poelstra. Maybe Rahul is this
person.
3) Re-scope the entire strategy of what Codec Buddy was meant to do,
what new options may be available now that weren't six months ago, and
make very clear what the options are.
4) Ask f-a-b for a decision, escalating to f-p-b if need be.
5) Clear options with Legal.
6) Do it.
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
