Jeff Pitman <jeff.pitman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/27/05, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The risk/reward ratio for Red Hat to consider indemnifying users against > > the two issues is completely different. I don't think you'll see Red > > Hat going out on a limb for MP3 players. > IOW, indemnification offers are just hot air. No, they aren't. Sure, Red Hat counts on never to have to pay out, but the offer is still good (and gives the people on the other end of it a bit of reassurance, which is exactly the point). > But, we know this isn't > indemnification for MP3s, it's a different beast. Why, you can sure get them. I.e., if you are liable to pay $$$ for using MP3 without a valid license, I'd be happy to give you an indemnification offer paying your costs (if it comes that far) for the very reasonable amount of 2 x $$$ (to cover taxes, expenses, my own liability in this, ...). Deal? > The comment was to > highlight where Redhat's priorities are. For good or bad. No need to point them out here, except for trolling. > Let's not forget that the "holier-than-thou" stance alienates quite a few > users. So what? Fedora has its guidelines and goals, which include this "stance" as you paint it. If you don't agree, either get elected as officer in the relevant place to change it, or go elsewhere. It's a free world. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
