On 8/18/05, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But if some Add-On-Repos would provide such a CD-ISO as add-on in their
> Repo and if this CD is well known to everyone ("hey, go and get that
> Fedora-Add-On-CD, without it Fedora is not fully functional") it would
> solve the problem for most people in the freeworld more easily.
Logic fault:
if its well known to everyone there would be no need to point to it by
anyone else.
Semantics aside and without touching the policy issue that Sundaram
brought up about whether its the right policy decision, no... redhat
as the managing entity cannot willfully point people to a collection
of software they know is infringing..even if its public knowledge by
other means. It doesn't matter if this makes logical sense, we are
talking about US law here.. logic does not apply. Legal risk is legal
risk, the entity who is liable has to evaluate the situation and
determine where the line is as to what behavior brings unacceptable
risk. Since redhat is the one exposed to the legal liability at the
moment as the managing entity, its very difficult to make any
compelling argument that second guesses their legal opinion as an
outside layperson, simply because our assets are not on the line.
-jef"is waiting for someone in the community to offer to indemnify
redhat against all liability for contributory infringement"spaleta
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
