Legal Update

[Paul W. Frields]

On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 10:38 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 10:22 AM, Vladimir Kosovac <vnk at mkc.co.nz> wrote:
> > Apart from direct links to livna/RPM Fusion, other repos maybe, this
> > page could provide a bit more general reference to what exactly third
> > parties are hosting, by listing multi-media players, display drivers,
> > etc, rather than explicitly mentioning encumbered codecs. That ought to
> > be 'general' enough to stay in clear from a legal perspective.
> 
> No i think you are wrong. I think mentioning repository contents by
> name should be absolutely off-limits.   A sample of general categories
> of things at each listed repository possibly, but specific software
> projects absolutely not. 3rd party repository sites will hopefully
> have browsable searchable listings, there's very very little point it
> attempting to make a hand-picked selection of packages in our
> description of the repository. And there's certaintly no point in
> attempting to duplicate the full list of repository offerings in a
> fedora controlled space...we'd never be as accurate as the repository
> site's own listings, unless that repository is dedicated to a single
> package like Adobe's flash plugin repository.
> 
> I think Fedora as a project and the userbase are best served if we
> limit ourselves to a statement that these repositories include
> software that does not meet the Fedora Project guidelines for
> inclusion and leave it at that.  If we can't leave it at that, then I
> would go as far as supporting the listing a few categories of software
> that apply to a repository if we mean to list multiple repositories.
> Dribble for example would be all about games. I wouldn't bother
> telling people which games... just that Dribble is where you should
> look if you are interested in more games.

Here's what I think is hilarious about this whole debate:  People who
want support for feature/codec/package X still have to find out how to
do that.  Where do they find out, if we don't publish it on our official
one-click page?  They find out from the same place where they would have
found the advice to use the MungeyPants repo in the first place.  What
problem are we actually solving with this link, anyway?

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
           Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20071117/d1ed763e/attachment.bin