sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Fri Nov 16 15:09:26 UTC 2007
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said:
>> I had the impression that it was about linking to the repository package
>> directly instead of just the website? If even linking to the website itself
>> from a dialog box in codeina is not ok with Red Hat Legal,
> It's not. What part of 'you may not link to the repository in the software'
> is hard to understand?
The "repository" might mean either a website that hosts the repository
or a .repo or repo release rpm file. There might be a legal difference
in between these. I am merely asking for some clarifications.
>> update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy or in the second dialog
>> where it lists the Fluendo codecs, we could introduce a new link that says
>> "click here for free alternatives" or something similar. Is that ok?
> Again, that second dialog is in the software itself, populated from the
> XML file.
Click here for free alternatives could lead to some page in the Fedora
wiki which then would lead to the third party repository. I don't know
the implementation details enough to know whether it is possible
currently. If not, it could probably be modified to do this. The
question I am asking is really whether we want to do this or not in the
More information about the advisory-board