Rahul Sundaram wrote:
So why don't we just do the same with US users? Something like:
"If you are in a location where these patents apply (eg. US), there are
companies that provide legal software to play such formats"
would be enough, I think.
We are allowed to point to sources in this case. If you are in U.S and
other regions enforcing such patents, somebody has to pay for the patent
license. It might be hardware vendor, OS vendor or whatever. Hiding the
cost hides one of the fundamental problems that users need to understand
(ie) a completely free Fedora cannot include paid and proprietary
codecs. Highlighting the cost is part of the message that codeina
provides to the end users.
Ah, comeone "Highlighting the cost is part of the message that codeina
provides to the end users" ?? Thats just plain nonsense, the linking to must
pay for codecs in codina is plain and simply _bad_, but for some reason
condoned because the codec issue is a big problem for end users, so having some
very ugly work around is seen as ok in this situation.
I must say however that I find promoting closed source software this way is way
worse IMHO then many of the completely open, may be modified, redistributed
modified and original, but may not be used commercial software which we are
keeping out of Fedora.
Don't get me wrong I understand that no commercial use is a use restriction and
therefor makes the affected software non free, although for me and many others
the software i as free as free software, since I've no commercial plans with
it. And since the affected software is non free I'm not arging for its
inclusion, I'm arguing against codina!
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
