On 7/19/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
seth vidal wrote: > okay - then we're getting somewhere. > > we have a set of reasonable requirements which help the user AND > educates them about whats going on. > > Who is lead on codec buddy right now? Bastien Nocera (CC'ed) was working on it. He submitted the codeina package for review. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241387 This still leaves my original question of whether we want to be linking to a third party repository and making it easy to installing plugins from it a click through process unanswered. The consensus on that seems to be: Ask Legal first.
I'd strongly suggest having more detail than that in anything you propose to legal. * who will choose what that points at? * where (geography, hardware) will they be hosted, and by who? * will it be source-available-but-patent-encumbered only? or will it include no-source options? or some other line? * what type of education do you plan to do? might it admit (or not) that there is a belief or public allegation that patents are infringed? if it does not, how is the whole exercise publicly justified? I have no idea what the "right" answers to these questions are, but if you have at least *some* answer to them the conversation with legal will be smoother- if nothing else you'll have a place to start discussion and you'll show you've given some consideration to the issue. Luis (DEFINITELY NOT LEGAL) _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
