Am 04.11.2013 19:35, schrieb Alberto Ruiz: > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:28 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100, >> Alberto Ruiz <aruiz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and >>> I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either), saying that they are >>> effectively non-free is a bit inaccurate, the _binaries_ are not >>> re-distributable under US jurisdiction, access to the source code is >>> granted, which makes them non-US, the software is free (the source >>> license does grant 4 freedoms). There are plenty of countries where >>> software patents are not valid making it perfectly fine. >> >> If you don't need to worry about the patents, then x264 (available from >> RPMFusion) is going to be better code to use for handling h.264. > > How is the code from RPMFusion any better? And if getting it through > RPMFusion is acceptable, why is it suddenly unacceptable to do it trough > other means? I don't care about the quality of the code, I just care > that my video is decoded. decide this for yourself but do not taint Fedora for this reason
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
