On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 22:26 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > 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. The statement beginning AFAIK is with reference to Mark Shuttleworth (as is perfectly obvious from context), and furthermore is a simple question of fact which others have since corrected. Did I say RH had bad lawyers? Did I say that RH took its decision with no legal basis? No and no. Did RH take its decision for a mixture of reasons, some of which may not be simply questions of legality? Gosh, a question without a black and white answer. poc -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
