On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:21:11 -0500 Christopher Blizzard <blizzard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 14:04 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > >> seth vidal wrote: > >>> If that's the case then we should just give up on this quixotic goal of > >>> having a pure-free-software distro and start talking to companies for > >>> how they'd like us to provide their closed-source packages and how to > >>> tie a webstore frontend into yum. > >> yumgate! woo! > >> > >> In all seriousness I don't think that there are a lot of instances where > >> we would be willing to do something like what we've done in this case. > >> I'm happy with inconsistency, as long we're transparent about it. > >> > >> In this case it's just because there's no other legal way to do it. We > >> can't even ship the free versions because of patent concerns. > >> > > > > This is what I'm looking for here. I'd like to be able to say something > > that kinda-sorta makes sense for reasons to say no to money from some > > vendor to put an ad for their software in the distro. > > Hmm. Trying to firm up the message here. > > For me this was all about consuming content. The basic problem we're > trying to solve for end users is that there's a lot of content on the > web that requires access to patent-encumbered code. In order to keep > Fedora relevant for the real world, we felt that we needed to make an > exception for end users to legally obtain codecs to view encumbered content. Wait... what prevented users from legally obtaining codecs from fluendo before? Nothing from what I remember... josh _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
