[Fedora-packaging] Inaccurate information about LiVES package

[Jarod Wilson]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:11:19PM -0300, salsaman wrote:
> Please answer the question. I have been personally assured by
> representatives of the mplayer developers that the ffmpeg code contains *no
> patented code*.

Are these mplayer developers legal experts in patent law?

> I spent over two years fighting to convince the debian
> developers that this was true, until they finally accepted it.

Again, Debian doesn't have the same level of exposure as a distribution
with a corporate backer in the US -- i.e. Red Hat. Red Hat legal has
already made a call on this. They would have to clear any change in stance
with respect to ffmpeg and the like.

> I am very tired of this discussion, and I am not prepared to go through it
> all again with the fedora legal dept.
> 
> Please just point me to just one registered patent that the core of ffmpeg
> is known to violate.
> Otherwise you are just spreading FUD.

If you're not willing to talk to someone with legal expertise about a
legal matter, then you're not going to get anywhere here. Sorry.




> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange at redhat.com>wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:41:21AM -0300, salsaman wrote:
> > > Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the
> > *core*
> > > of ffmpeg.
> >
> > This is the wrong place to raise legal questions wrt Fedora packaging, or
> > potential new packages for Fedora. They should be directed to Fedora Legal
> > team
> >
> >  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal
> >
> >  "If you have any legal questions that can be discussed in public,
> >   post to fedora-legal-list . If you have any private legal questions
> >   send a mail to legal AT fedoraproject.org"
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel


-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod at redhat.com