On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:29:02PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:21:56 -0600, > Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >>I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official > >>Fedora > >>position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be > >>making > >>claims about Fedora on my own on how far Fedora will or won't go in > >>supporting OpenH264. (This could in theory affect our ability to use > >>the > >>Firefox trademark if we block its ability to download that codec from > >>Cisco. > >>Assuming that the download is implemented in Firefox.) > > > >Thanks very much; the statement at [1] makes it clear that Fedora will > >not support WebRTC if H.264 becomes MTI. Now, who wants to tell the > >IETF.... > > > >[1] > >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2013-November/012261.html > > That's not what it says. That just says we won't package the binary. > What isn't answered is limitations on the process for Firefox > downloading it in Fedora. I really doubt firefox will be totally > prevented from downloading the binary as a plugin. It might be only > doable by an admin. The default might be changed so it doesn't > automatically do the install. Or there might be other tweaks to make > it less intrusive for people that don't want it or maybe to make sure > they understand the restrictions they agree to by using / downloading > the binary. And it looks like that falls under FESCO's purview (if > they want some limitations). > I've opened https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1192 to discuss this at Wednesday's FESCo meeting. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp8Mq2DQ2L16.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
