could the "missing codec" redirection be more informative?

[Ed Greshko]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Ed Greshko wrote:
>
>   
>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>>>         
>
>   
>>>   i wasn't suggesting that the diagnostic solve the problem.  but
>>> would it be unacceptable for it to give *general* advice about
>>> possibly adding extra repositories to your system, and by the way,
>>> here's a page with a list of possible repos, do with them what you
>>> will.
>>>
>>>   is that unreasonable?
>>>
>>>       
>> Yes, it is likely unreasonable.  Again, the advice is not "general"
>> it is being given in response to a specific issue.
>>
>> If I talk about ways to defeating different alarm systems on a car
>> without having been prompted for advice I am just talking about it.
>> But, if someone says....I tried breaking into a Lexus but couldn't
>> and I respond with even general advice it is pretty clear what my
>> intentions are.  I'm intending to instruct you how to break into a
>> Lexus.  It is the "intent" that matters.
>>     
>
>   oh, balls.  a page from fedoraproject.org:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OtherRepositories
>
> *explicitly* refers readers to rpmfusion.org, for the following
> reason:
>
> "There are a number of third-party software repositories for Fedora
> that provide software packages that Fedora excludes for various
> reasons. These software repositories are not officially affiliated or
> endorsed by the Fedora Project. Use them at your own discretion."
>
> are you seriously suggesting that it would now be legally problematic
> to go here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageKit_Items_Not_Found#Missing_Codec
>
> and add a line reading nothing more than:
>
> "you might want to read this page over here (linking to that first
> page)."
>
>   that strikes me as hair-splitting of the finest kind, and i can't
> believe that a half-competent lawyer couldn't figure out a way to do
> that.
>   
Yes...I am suggesting that it would be legally problematic for fedora to
tell the users for each and every very *explicit* problem they are
having to *explicitly* go to some place to find software to install to
violate the law.

The notice about other repositories is general and not saying it solves
a *explicit/specific* problem.
 
I am also pretty sure that your approach would have been talked about by
the legal team of Red Hat and rejected for just that reason.

This would be an endless debate on this list...that has been endlessly
debated on this list in various forms for a long time.

Yet the bottom line is...it was a legal decision that was made by folks
who could end up being defendants in any suit.




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20091123/08f3fbc8/attachment-0001.bin