On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 09:23 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 16:37 -0600, John Morris wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 09:03, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > in some jurisdictions there is a legal precedent for linking to > > > "illegal" content to be just as bad as distributing it. Now I'm not > > > saying that the flash plugin is illegal (it's not afaik) but the > > > parallel is enough to scare many lawyers ;) > > > > I really doubt there could be legal implications to pointing to an ftp > > site. Even if they prefer people go to the webpage there has been > > enough cases now about linking to pretty much settle that issue. > > > > But has anyone at RH tried asking for permission? Including preset repo > > lines for livna is right out, both legally and morally for the mission > > of Fedora. But what about the idea of a legal but non-free catagory for > > Flash, Acrobat, Nvidia, ATI, etc? > > what makes you think NVidia and ATI are legal? > Since the vendor(s) makes them available for free download I would guess there is no question of legality here. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list