Francis Earl wrote:
There is plenty of information we can share, and the wiki can also be a
good place to inform users why some things aren't available. Also, with
the CodecsBuddy, we apparently can now talk about accessing some of the
things that were previously an issue.
The legal situation has not changed. Software that is compliant with the
legal situation has been developed and we can point to it with some
caveats.
What do these caveats involve? As far as I was aware, Fluendo is now
providing these codecs legally, and thus it was perfectly legal for
users to access those codecs.
Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to
distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_3-6161480.html.
That's just FYI.
I also understand that Fedora is very strong on it's notion of what
should be in the distro, and I very much agree. It is also a very good
opportunity to educate users however about free alternatives while
informing them about legal access to things they may want.
Wording is important. Anything that suggests users to encourage
proprietary solutions even if they are legal is tricky since it does not
help our goals with Fedora. Usually these software don't support all the
architectures that we support. So there are practical issues too.
Rahul
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
