Paul W. Frields wrote:
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.
7) RPM Fusion website explains in great detail which package he needs
for what functionality.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
