On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 20:27 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 22:22 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote: > > Video codecs: no offer or mention of RPMfusion in contrast to competitors' > > distros. (fails the apple.com/trailers test) > > Just replying to this one for now. The Fedora project cannot actually > mention RPMFusion outside of how > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OtherRepositories is worded due to the > type of content carried at RPMFusion and it's legality within the United > States of America. Since Red Hat is a US headquartered company, and RHT > has legal responsibility over Fedora, Fedora needs to abide by US law. > It is unfortunate, but contributory infringement is a nasty issue to > deal with :/ also, it would arguably be against the Fedora project's goals even if we legally-speaking _could_. Fedora is not about convenient access to proprietary software for short-term benefit. Fedora prefers to encourage the use of free / open source / unencumbered alternatives. I don't think it would fit with the Fedora project's goals to offer proprietary drivers, codecs or extensions such as Flash even if we had the legal okay to do it. free-yet-patent-encumbered codecs are a bit of a grey area, granted. I'm not sure how the Fedora philosophy covers those. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- Fedora-desktop-list mailing list Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
