On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-21 at 13:47 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote: >> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 11:21:01AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> > Peter Robinson wrote: >> > > I don't see when the support lands in F-13 there couldn't be press >> > > statements about it, just because it appears after the release doesn't >> > > mean its not significant and isn't worth making a statement about. >> > >> > In fact this is a big failure of our feature process, but whenever I have >> > brung this up in FESCo, the reaction of the other folks there was to >> > threaten banning that kind of updates entirely. :-/ >> > >> > <SARCASM>Yeah, wonderful idea, let's allow everyone else to advertise WebM >> > support months before us</SARCASM> just because the upstream release date >> > happened to be at the worst possible point of our release cycle. :-/ >> > >> > Adding features in updates is needed. Our feature process needs to >> > accomodate this. The current process is broken. > >> I'm not sure we need to push it all the way into F13, but a special WebM >> repo would be nice so this can be easily tested by any user on F13 >> systems in preparation for full 'support' in F14. > > Are there any plans to have Red Hat Legal look at the patent-freeness of > WebM before we leap to include it? We don't take other people's word for > it in most cases of potential patent problems, so I don't think it > follows that we would just take Google's word for it in this case... According to a comment on the actual bug [1] RH Legal has already reviewed it. Peter [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593879 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
