On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Matej Cepl wrote: > > version that includes it. Say in a German-only repository on german > > servers (and mirrors outside of red hat's control). > > Don't go there -- you are trying to do an analysis of the venue for > litigation in the international context. That's one of the most > complicated things you can do in the international private law. I have > two law degrees, one from U.S. university dealing explicitly with the > international law, and still I wouldn't be very sure what the result of > such analysis is. Yes I know. And I understand. And I agree. However, as I stated in th part that you did not quote, then CodecBuddy should just not exist and the community should find it like it has before (eg via livna). The current solution makes RedHat's impact on Fedora US-centric. Now I understand they don't want to risk international litigation. But the current solution is wrong on many points: - It gives false information to non-US users of Fedora - It promots proprietary non-free software - It promits non-free over free software for non-US users of Fedora So the question comes down to: Do we tell where americans can find workarounds for the failed patent system in the US at the expense of mis-informing everyone else? Or do we just keep quiet and let people find out for themselves? Or do we distinguish US and non-US users similarly to the old days style "crypto export regulations". > Translated into plain English -- bad idea. So tell me your idea on how we can better inform the internationa community about patents and codecs, without discriminating against non-US users of Fedora. Because the current idea of pretending international users of Fedora don't exist just before Red Hat is an American company is worse then keeping quiet like we did pre-F8. Paul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
