Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>> I had the impression that it was about linking to the repository package >>> directly instead of just the website? If even linking to the website >>> itself from a dialog box in codeina is not ok with Red Hat Legal, >> It's not. What part of 'you may not link to the repository in the >> software' >> is hard to understand? > > The "repository" might mean either a website that hosts the repository or a > .repo or repo release rpm file. There might be a legal difference in > between these. I am merely asking for some clarifications. In *either* case of what you're saying, the answer for 'from a dialog box in codeina' is still no. >>> update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy or in the second dialog >>> where it lists the Fluendo codecs, we could introduce a new link that >>> says "click here for free alternatives" or something similar. Is that ok? >> Again, that second dialog is in the software itself, populated from the >> XML file. > > Click here for free alternatives could lead to some page in the Fedora wiki > which then would lead to the third party repository. I don't know the > implementation details enough to know whether it is possible currently. Then don't repeatedly ask 'can we do X' when informed that the software can't do X. Bill _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
