Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Fair point. However the precise nature of the difference between
> Fedora and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. On
> both systems the user can install propietary codecs, and on both
> systems there are clear warnings that this is "at your own risk" and
> the proprietary stuff is not installed by default. The practical
> difference from the user's point of view is that Ubuntu tells you
> how to get it and Fedora doesn't (the fact that Ubuntu actually
> hosts some of it is to my mind a red herring; they could just as
> easily provide pointers to 3rd-party sites if they were worried
> about keeping legal distance, so apparently they aren't worried
> about it).
It is not so simple. Even if you don't host the infringing code, you
can run into problems pointing people to it. See below.
> It may also be relevant that Red Hat is a US company, and Canonical
> isn't, and that US law allows software patents, and many other
> countries don't (yet), but IANAL of course.
Yes, that is quite relevant. The problem with Fedora telling users
how to install things that violate US law is that it is considered
"contributory infringement" (google that ;).
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
-- Dave Barry
Attachment:
pgpCvo0ZS78Ro.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
