On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:57 -0700, Francis Earl wrote: > > Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company > > to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red > > Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it. > > > > Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3' > > > > Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't > > licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed > > it from the wrong people. > > > > Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and > > Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart > > to distribute this stuff. > > > > Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low > > market share that it's not worth it today. > > AFAIK he doesn't "distribute" it (for some meaning of "distribute"), > just makes it easy to get. I may be wrong (and I've no interest in > arguing about it), but I think the Fedora rationale for not doing the > same thing has more to do with avoiding lockin than avoiding lawsuits. RedHat employs lawyers. Unless the managed to employ only incompetent lawyers, I'm guessing they know more than you on this. So making such statements as "as far as you know" is useless. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
