Legal Update

[Christopher Aillon]

On 11/19/2007 04:26 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> On 11/19/2007 04:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:23:58 +0530
>>>> Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 3) Another dialog which offers the Fluendo codecs/ "Click here for 
>>>>> alternatives"
>>>>> 4) User chooses to click on alternatives link
>>>>> 5) Gets directed to Fedora wiki page which has a link to RPM Fusion 
>>>>
>>>> This part smells a lot like having a "reason" why these other repos
>>>> exist (like what kind of content are within) which is verboten.
>>>
>>> Can you explain a bit more what you mean by that? I am not sure I 
>>> understand.
>>
>>
>> 3) Another dialog which offers legal stuff / Click here for 
>> potentially illegal stuff.
>> 4) User chooses to click on link to illegal stuff.
>> 5) Gets redirected to Fedora wiki page with intent to get illegal stuff.
>>
>> Smells of contributory infringment.
> 
> We asked Red Hat Legal and they have told us clearly what is allowed and 
> what I have described is what is allowed AFAIK. If we need any 
> clarification, we can go back and ask the real lawyers.
> 

Read spot's mail again.  You can't give a reason.  You can say general 
things such as "There's some other software that we don't ship which is 
available here".  You can't say "There's some other software that we 
don't ship because of .... which is available here".   Including it in a 
very specific context like this seems to fall more into the latter, not 
the former, and does not appear to be allowed.