can anyone tell me how to get mp3 support in Fedora since RH did away with built in support... I have tried different libraries and such, but just want to get it working and forget about it...;)
thanks,
--evan hazlett
Hazlett, Evan [EAC/FF] wrote:
can anyone tell me how to get mp3 support in Fedora since RH did away with built in support... I have tried different libraries and such, but just want to get it working and forget about it...;)
Lot's of ways to do that, one way... go here: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraHOWTO
And get http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/0.95/i386/RPMS.stable/apt-0.5.5cnc6-... And get http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/synaptic-0.43.1-0...
After you install them, in /etc/apt/sources.list, put the following:
### Beginning of /etc/apt/sources.list # Fedora Core rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 os updates rpm-src http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 os updates
# Fedora Extras (formerly "Fedora Linux") rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing rpm-src http://download.fedora.us/fedora redhat/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing
# Fedora Core 1 Test 3 updates will be distributed through Rawhide rpm http://ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/apt redhat/rawhide/en/i386 os #failover rawhide repo #rpm http://ftp.silug.org/pub/apt redhat/rawhide/en/i386/redhat os
# auxiliary source of packages with questionable licenses -- use at your own risk rpm http://rpm.livna.org/ fedora/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing rpm-src http://rpm.livna.org/ fedora/0.95/i386 stable unstable testing #### End of Apt Sources.
Then (as root) run "synaptic"
You will like it.
-Ben.
can anyone tell me how to get mp3 support in Fedora since RH did away with built in support... I have tried different libraries and such, but just want to get it working and forget about it...;)
*directing the question towards those who are creating the xmms rpms*
Why exactly is this still an issue? Since Fedora is not a Red Hat product, only a Red Hat sponsered project, these copyright issues shouldn't concern them anymore.
Once upon a time, Ricky Boone whiplash@planetfurry.com said:
Why exactly is this still an issue? Since Fedora is not a Red Hat product, only a Red Hat sponsered project, these copyright issues shouldn't concern them anymore.
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue, and anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software was included in the distribution.
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 22:39, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ricky Boone whiplash@planetfurry.com said:
Why exactly is this still an issue? Since Fedora is not a Red Hat product, only a Red Hat sponsered project, these copyright issues shouldn't concern them anymore.
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue, and anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software was included in the distribution.
Aa I understand it, the only time when distributing MP3 codecs is an issue is if they are part of a product that is being sold, if, like XMMS and winamp the product is distributed for free then there is no problem with including MP3 functionality, so while there is some ambiguity whether Red Hat could include MP3 players Fedora shouldn't have a problem, I could be wrong though
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, James Keasley wrote:
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue, and anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software was included in the distribution.
Aa I understand it, the only time when distributing MP3 codecs is an issue is if they are part of a product that is being sold, if, like XMMS and winamp the product is distributed for free then there is no problem with including MP3 functionality, so while there is some ambiguity whether Red Hat could include MP3 players Fedora shouldn't have a problem, I could be wrong though
You are wrong. Very wrong. This particular issue has been discussed to death for 2 years now and every possible thing that could be said about it has been said about 10000 times. Nobody has yet to introduce a new idea into the entire concept of the MP3 discussion for about 23 months. All old news.
Aside from the patent issue, there is the fact that all MP3 software currently in existance is licensed under the GPL license, which explicitly forbids usage of patents unless the patent owner has granted royalty free unlimited license to use the software in GPL code, and that hasn't happened.
Go search google and read any one of about 40 mailing lists archives for previous discussions on this topic. If you collect every single discussion together and begin reading it, every single message of every single thread, you will probably take about 2 years to read it all more or less.
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue,...
Sorry, my mistake.
and anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software was included in the distribution.
If that's the case, why aren't other distributions, such as Mandrake, SuSE, etc., removing MP3 support like RH is? It looks like this is a moot issue, but it seems that there really isn't much concern from the rest of the Linux community concerning MP3 patent infrigement on this level.
Aa I understand it, the only time when distributing MP3 codecs is an issue is if they are part of a product that is being sold, if, like XMMS and winamp the product is distributed for free then there is no problem with including MP3 functionality, so while there is some ambiguity whether Red Hat could include MP3 players Fedora shouldn't have a problem, I could be wrong though
That was my understanding of it.
My biggest beef with it is why are other distro's "getting away with it", while if I choose to stick with RH or Fedora, I have to go out and bypass their stock RPM's?
Ricky Boone said:
It isn't a copyright issue, it is a patent infringement issue,...
Sorry, my mistake.
and anyone that distributes infringing software can be sued. This means Red Hat (as the primary distributor) as well as all the Red Hat mirrors could be sued for distributing unlicensed MP3 software if MP3 software was included in the distribution.
If that's the case, why aren't other distributions, such as Mandrake, SuSE, etc., removing MP3 support like RH is? It looks like this is a moot issue, but it seems that there really isn't much concern from the rest of the Linux community concerning MP3 patent infrigement on this level.
Sigh. "Everyone else does it" is not a valid legal defense. If you use the things in the MP3 patent for commercial use, you are required to pay royalties. The GPL doesn't allow restrictions on use via patents. All "GPL" MP3 software is not GPL compatible.
Next argument, "why doesn't Red Hat write a non-GPL player". Because Red Hat believes in open source and Ogg is already there.
Next argument, "but that doesn't work for my MP3 player". Sorry. Feel free to write your own MP3 software, under a license that can co-exist with the patent, without using any of the existing GPL code. It's still not going to get shipped by Red Hat.
I'm sure there are some arguments that I forgot... as someone else said, I'm sure they are already in the archives.
-- William Hooper
Sigh. "Everyone else does it" is not a valid legal defense.
That's not what I meant. I wasn't meaning that since everyone else has support that Fedora should also based completely on that fact. My point was that there are other distro's that -are- selling their products with MP3 support, yet Fedora does not, and it's freely available... not sold.
If you use the things in the MP3 patent for commercial use, you are required to pay royalties. The GPL doesn't allow restrictions on use via patents. All "GPL" MP3 software is not GPL compatible.
But Fedora is not a commercial product... it isn't "revenue-generating", as the company holding these patents likes to put it. Why should they expect for a company, or developer, to pay royalty licensing fees for a product that isn't sold?
I'm sorry, let's just drop this, I don't mean to drag this into the ground any further, it's just a problem that seems to cause people to consistantly ask for help on. Perhaps there should be a notice on the Fedora site about this, howtos or links to howtos and rpms, etc... (that is if there isn't one already...)
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere in the world... :)
(sorry this has probably also been asked before, just want to know...)
Erik
My biggest beef with it is why are other distro's "getting away with it", while if I choose to stick with RH or Fedora, I have to go out and bypass their stock RPM's?
Getting away with it and not yet getting sued for retroactive royalties, patent infringement, or GPL violations are not the same thing.
Reading the news one can see the plaintiff goes after the deepest pockets, Red Hat would like not to be the test case for any such business. And there is principle involved. Use Ogg.
Or if you must use mp3, install it yourself. Last I checked folks had to go get plug-ins and readers and such from third parties all the time.
--jeremy
Am Sa, den 25.10.2003 schrieb Erik Englund um 01:10:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
is this a fedora list? seems to be a lot of off topic stuff here. I subscribed to this list to keep up to date on fedora stuff, not general linux stuff. Maybe you folks should subscribe to your local linux user group list...
--ras
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 08:53, Niels Weber wrote:
Am Sa, den 25.10.2003 schrieb Erik Englund um 01:10:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
The GPL compatibility problem is not kept aside. In fact, as there is no patent on MP3 in Europe, there is no problem including MP3 support in any GPL software in Europe.
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 09:53, Niels Weber wrote:
Am Sa, den 25.10.2003 schrieb Erik Englund um 01:10:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European server that US people are not aloud to download? I mean, how many US corporations aren't breaking US human right laws in third world countries that is not a crime in that countries, no one can do anything about that, so therefore it should be no problem with a special non us version of fedora, or?
On Saturday 25 October 2003 12:34, Erik Englund wrote:
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European server that US people are not aloud to download? I mean, how many US
It doesn't really make a great deal of difference so long as rpms are readily available for xmms MPG3 and mplayer (they are, eg, freshrpms.net), its just a small post-install action that needs to be done (along with killing artsd, Noatun and Kaboodle)... Redhat don't have to get involved with that at all. Looking at the way Redhat stepped up with SCO, I feel happier they are Caesar's Wife on the subject and are acting conservatively to protect their cashpile for Doing Good In The World.
If you feel really worked up about it, consider making a Fedora++ or MetaFedora, which can include the Forbidden Fruits, maybe you can distribute it as an rsync patch to the official redhat ISO, that way you won't have trouble with the Redhat TM artwork and stuff. In fact if you consider this you should get together with the text-to-speech guy, it can include his patched kernel... in fact everything that Redhat reject but somebody loves could end up in it, a kind of consolation distro.
-Andy
On Oct 25, 2003, Niels Weber nath@snafu.de wrote:
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
IANAL, but the GPL seems to allow geographical limitations to the distribution of a package, See 8. in the GNU GPL for the details.
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 16:33, dragoran wrote:
will mozilla 1.5 be included in fedora core 1 ?
No. Discussed in this list's archives at http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, nosp wrote:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 16:33, dragoran wrote:
will mozilla 1.5 be included in fedora core 1 ?
No. Discussed in this list's archives at http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
mozilla.org has rpms for fedora 0.95. You can just install them using yum..
I have the following in my /etc/yum.conf file
>
[mozilla-seamonkey] name=Mozilla SeaMonkey Releases baseurl=http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releases/curren...
>
One issue that came up is epiphany - I just took the spec file from the rawhide epiphany.srpm and built epiphany-1.0.4-1.i386.rpm with the latest epiphany tar file. I wanted to try the html editor in the latest mozilla - but use epiphany for borwser (was a galeon user) - hence this approach.
Satish
Satish Balay wrote:
[mozilla-seamonkey] name=Mozilla SeaMonkey Releases baseurl=http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releases/curren...
One issue that came up is epiphany - I just took the spec file from the rawhide epiphany.srpm and built epiphany-1.0.4-1.i386.rpm with the latest epiphany tar file. I wanted to try the html editor in the latest mozilla - but use epiphany for borwser (was a galeon user) - hence this approach.
Satish
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
No Mozilla-psm rpm is such directory....that was present on RC1 rpm's. How do I manage it???
Tnx
Antonio
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Antonio Montagnani wrote:
No Mozilla-psm rpm is such directory....that was present on RC1 rpm's. How do I manage it???
Don't know what error you've encountred. I'd sugest 'yum upgrade' or 'yum remove mozilla-psm; yum upgrade'
Looks like mozilla-psm stuff is rolled into mozilla package in both variants (rawhide & mozilla.org)
Satish
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Niels Weber wrote:
On Sat, 2003-10-25 at 00:18, Mike A. Harris wrote:
MP3 issue is not about to change until the patent expires, which if calculations are correct is 17 years after it was filed.
what about a non us release? software patents isn't a problem everywhere in the world... :)
This is why you get the mp3 rpms easily from non US servers. And this is why Mandrake (french) and SuSE (german) can distribute p3 capable stuff. (it being not GPL compatible left aside)
And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists, and an US IP attorney for further details.
On Sunday 26 October 2003 02:10 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists, and an US IP attorney for further details.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
Can we please stop bashing the USA!
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Chris wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 02:10 am, Mike A. Harris wrote:
And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists, and an US IP attorney for further details.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
It's a software patent issue that currently cannot be enforced in Europe afaik.
Besides we wouldn't be having the whole patenting issue now if it wasn't for the US. The guidelines used by the European commission were actually designed by the Business Software Alliance and mostly lobbied by several US interest groups.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Chris wrote:
And has been said 500 times in the past as well *EVERY* single time this stupid MP3 debate comes up, Red Hat is a USA corporation, subject to the laws of the United States of America worldwide. Consult past discussions on various mailing lists, and an US IP attorney for further details.
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
Can we please stop bashing the USA!
There are MULTIPLE reasons why MP3 support are not present in the distribution. One is the patent issue, another is the GPL disallowing patented bits to be in GPL code. There are other issues, and I don't think they need to be rehashed and rediscussed every 10 days for eternity. The discussions are not going to introduce any new arguments from anyone out there in any country ever. The situation is unlikely to change ever. Red Hat's legal status in the matter isn't going to change.
All these discussions prove is that history repeats itself like a broken record.
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Dag Wieers wrote:
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
It's a software patent issue that currently cannot be enforced in Europe afaik.
Besides we wouldn't be having the whole patenting issue now if it wasn't for the US. The guidelines used by the European commission were actually designed by the Business Software Alliance and mostly lobbied by several US interest groups.
Regardless of the kind opinions of all of the IANAL (I am not a lawyer) people out there who would like to interpret the laws of every country out there and how those laws apply to them, their country, Red Hat, or someone else, Red Hat does have a team of legal council who is very aware of the laws of the United States, Europe and other countries in the world.
Red Hat legal council is very capable of knowing how to determine what is legal and what is not, and what Red Hat can legally ship in which if any countries in the world, and that includes MP3 support.
The status quo of MP3 support in the current distribution as distributed throughout the world, as decided by this legal team, who _ARE_ highly skilled professional lawyers, should say something.
I'm kindof surprised how so many people who are NOT lawyers seem to think they know more about worldwide intellectual property law than a team of REAL lawyers.
Anyway, once again, the whole MP3 discussion leads to pointlessness because the opinions of 10's, 100's or 1000's of non-lawyers aren't going to change the fact that lawyers have decided what is and isn't legal to ship wherever, and that decision wont likely change until laws change.
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 15:47, Chris wrote:
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
I vote this question just gets answered something like:
- that's a FAQ - here's the reason: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html - consider open audio formats like OGG, they sound better
On Sunday 26 October 2003 08:54 am, nosp wrote:
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 15:47, Chris wrote:
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic, but I know that the DMCA is not the reason why mp3 support is not added to RedHat. I thought the reason was because of licensing issues related to mp3s, not the DMCA.
I vote this question just gets answered something like:
- that's a FAQ
- here's the reason: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html
- consider open audio formats like OGG, they sound better
"Due to patent licensing and conflicts between such patent licenses and the licenses of application source code..."
Why is this discussion continuing? Did I not say it was a licensing issue? I don't see DMCA or USA in that link at all. All I see is "licenses, licenses, licenses" just like I stated in my original message.
Please, end of discussion. And please, stop bashing USA.
On Sunday 26 October 2003 09:27 am, nosp wrote:
On Sun, 2003-10-26 at 17:18, Chris wrote:
And please, stop bashing USA.
I wasn't. Not sure how that's relevant to my post, given you said you hadn't read the discussions and I provided the main RH announcement.
Sorry, that reply was not meant for you specifically. I was replying to the community of people who like to bash the USA.
I agree, it should be added to the FAQ, thanks!
eh? What kind of stupidness is this? If RedHat were based in Germany there wouldn't be any mp3 support either!
The stupidness begins with the 30+ e-mails regarding an issue that shouldn't be on this list in the first place.
I am new to this mailing list and I havn't read the 500 other discussions on the topic
Welcome to the list. Please read the 500 other discussions. This is a fedora related list. Not a general linux list.
Can we please stop bashing the USA!
Can we please keep this list on topic.
--ras
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Erik Englund wrote:
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European server that US people are not aloud to download?
Are you volunteering ?
Is anybody else volunteering ?
I think you've got your answer ;)
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 16:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Erik Englund wrote:
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European server that US people are not aloud to download?
Are you volunteering ?
Is anybody else volunteering ?
I think you've got your answer ;)
hehe, sure i could if i had ANY idea of how to do it :p
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 17:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Erik Englund wrote:
exactly, so why don't fedora have an European release on a European server that US people are not aloud to download?
Are you volunteering ?
Is anybody else volunteering ?
I think you've got your answer ;)
One can setup "fedora NON-US" addon or whatever you name it... will/can save a lot of space we don't want see wasted, right? This is in case the source can't be distributed, if only the binary can't there can be --define nonus or whatever option in the source rpm (correct me if I'm wrong).
Currently I do recompile some packages and can easy find others from freshrpms and other places...
I'm kindof surprised how so many people who are NOT lawyers seem to think they know more about worldwide intellectual property law than a team of REAL lawyers.
If it is at all questionable then it should be excluded from the distribution. Everyone wants to take a bite out of Linux. It can't succeed if it is encumbered by patents. I applaud Red Hat for making the correct decision of distancing itself from litigation.
Moreover....if you are choosing a Linux distribution that includes MP3 support LOOK OUT. Even an unsuccessful lawsuit is costly. I doubt if your Linux distribution would survive a successful one.
Besides all this OGG is every bit as good. Who cares if it isn't the first thing on the market. It's open and free. It's the right choice.
Again...way to go Red Hat...
-Chris
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 22:44, Chris Spencer wrote:
I'm kindof surprised how so many people who are NOT lawyers seem to think they know more about worldwide intellectual property law than a team of REAL lawyers.
If it is at all questionable then it should be excluded from the distribution. Everyone wants to take a bite out of Linux. It can't succeed if it is encumbered by patents. I applaud Red Hat for making the correct decision of distancing itself from litigation.
Moreover....if you are choosing a Linux distribution that includes MP3 support LOOK OUT. Even an unsuccessful lawsuit is costly. I doubt if your Linux distribution would survive a successful one.
OK, you're right. You have to respect the law anyway. So, if the law says that's illegal to distribute MP3 programs, Redhat is right not to distribute them.
Besides all this OGG is every bit as good. Who cares if it isn't the first thing on the market. It's open and free. It's the right choice.
The only problem with OGG is that it's not supported by most mobile music players. I have one of them and it only supports MP3 and WMA. So, I have to rip my CDs in MP3 so that I can listen to them on my mobile music player...
Again...way to go Red Hat...
-Chris
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-
Alexandre Oliva -
Andy Green -
Antonio Montagnani -
Ben Russo -
Chris -
Chris Adams -
Chris Spencer -
Dag Wieers -
Doncho N. Gunchev -
dragoran -
Erik Englund -
Hazlett, Evan [EAC/FF] -
James Keasley -
Jeremy Hogan -
Jesse -
Julien Olivier -
Mike A. Harris -
Niels Weber -
nosp -
Ricky Boone -
Rik van Riel -
Satish Balay -
William Hooper