On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:11:19PM -0300, salsaman wrote: > Please answer the question. I have been personally assured by > representatives of the mplayer developers that the ffmpeg code contains *no > patented code*. Are these mplayer developers legal experts in patent law? > I spent over two years fighting to convince the debian > developers that this was true, until they finally accepted it. Again, Debian doesn't have the same level of exposure as a distribution with a corporate backer in the US -- i.e. Red Hat. Red Hat legal has already made a call on this. They would have to clear any change in stance with respect to ffmpeg and the like. > I am very tired of this discussion, and I am not prepared to go through it > all again with the fedora legal dept. > > Please just point me to just one registered patent that the core of ffmpeg > is known to violate. > Otherwise you are just spreading FUD. If you're not willing to talk to someone with legal expertise about a legal matter, then you're not going to get anywhere here. Sorry. > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:41:21AM -0300, salsaman wrote: > > > Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the > > *core* > > > of ffmpeg. > > > > This is the wrong place to raise legal questions wrt Fedora packaging, or > > potential new packages for Fedora. They should be directed to Fedora Legal > > team > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal > > > > "If you have any legal questions that can be discussed in public, > > post to fedora-legal-list . If you have any private legal questions > > send a mail to legal AT fedoraproject.org" > > > > Regards, > > Daniel -- Jarod Wilson jarod@xxxxxxxxxx -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
