to autodownload or not to autodownload

[Hans de Goede]

Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 02/10/2008 08:31 AM, Jaroslaw Gorny wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:58:54 -0500
>> Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:01:23 +0100
>>> "Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek" <jakub.rusinek at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> O rly? Codeina offers commercial codecs, for which we should pay,
>>>> while Fedora should ship "best free and open source software".
>>>>
>>>> It's hypocritical...
>>> If you ran the app, you would have seen ( well except for a very bad
>>> bug in F8 release :/  ):
>>>
>>> Proprietary and free formats
>>>
>> (...)
>>> You are then linked to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy
>>>
>>
>> OK. But why are we advertising a commercial company?
> 
> 
> If users want to get non-free items, I would MUCH rather usher them to 
> the legal way to do so versus the illegal way.  Fluendo is currently the 
> only legal way we can offer for the US and some other countries.
> 

The same argument could be used for autodownloader, if someone wants to play 
quake, I much rather have they use autodl to download a legal version then use 
some pirated full version.

I really must say I don't understand how people can have an issue with 
autodownloader and at the same time defend codina. To me that is nothing shirt 
of hypocritical.

Regards,

Hans