On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 20:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > > > Sorry if I was unclear. My point was that trying to walk this > > particular legal line -- a very fine one at that -- is making the value > > of our possibly-soon-to-be-published verbiage practically nil. > > Are you considering the entire workflow? > > 1) Click on a MPEG file > 2) A dialog explains why we support open non-patent encumbered formats > 3) Another dialog which offers the Fluendo codecs/ "Click here for > alternatives" > 4) User chooses to click on alternatives link > 5) Gets directed to Fedora wiki page which has a link to RPM Fusion > website or a repo file or package (Which spot has confirmed recently > that Legal is ok with) > 6) Installs software with a single click via Pirut > > How is this not an advantage over the current situation? I understand this workflow fine, but "Joe User" has no way of figuring out which package is the one to install for <encumbered_codec> once he has his repo configured, meaning our links haven't helped him. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
