Legal update

[Rahul Sundaram]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: 
>> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Then don't repeatedly ask 'can we do X' when informed that the software
>>> can't do X.
>> If we wanted to do this, obviously the software could be modified. The 
>> question again boils down to do we want to do this?
> 
> That's not what I'm talking about.
> 
> Spot said very clearly that *the software can not link to the third
> party repo.*
> 
> You have then asked if, and I quote:
> 
> - "we could link to RPM fusion from codeina" (i.e., link to the third
>   party repo from the software (codeina))
> - "[we could link to the repo] in the initial dialog box perhaps?" (i.e.,
>   linking to the repo from the dialog box, which is part of the software)
> - "linking to the [rpmfusion] webiste itself from a dialog box in codeina"
>   (i.e., linking to a third party repo from a dialog box, which is part of
>   the software)
> - "in the second dialog where it lists the Fluendo codecs, we could introduce
>   a new link [to the third party repo] that says..." (i.e., link from
>   the dialog, which is part of the software, to the third party repo)
> 
> So, asking 'if we want to do this' is silly, as every example you've given
> is *exactly what we were told we could not do.*

You have skipped some of what I said. Spot has said you can't link 
*directly* either the website or the software repository but some of my 
suggestions were not that.

I specifically mentioned that we could add some information to the 
CodecBuddy page in the wiki about RPM Fusion which is certainly possible 
if we wanted to.

My third suggestion that you have mentioned wasn't about a direct link 
either which you assumed it was. The link would go a Fedora Project wiki 
page which would explain our view points and then also link to RPM 
Fusion. Does that clarify what I said?

Rahul