[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The Multimedia Question



Hi.

Sorry for replying to an older thread, but I've only just subscribed.

On Friday, 20 July 2007 at 20:05, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:25 -0400, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > >From what I can gather, here's what's important:
> > 1. Promoting software freedom.
> > 2. Making life easier for the users who want to play media files.
> > 
> > It seems to me like goal #1 requires that the default install and
> > official Fedora links not point users at software that is not really
> > free. Simple as that.
> > 
> Depending on your definition of free...
> -1) Non-libre, non-gratis, software.
> 0) Non-patent-encumbered, non-free software but free-as-in-beer software
> 1) Patent-encumbered-in-the-US free software.
> 2) Patent-encumbered-in-the-US non-free software that has a license
> granting use of the patent.
> 3) Patent-encumbered-in-the-US free software with the patent licensed
> for use of a binary build of the software.
> 
> #-1 is not in any repo I'm aware of us thinking of linking to but it
> could exist in a repository we don't control.
> #0 is not mentioned in this thread but is a part of third party repos we
> may be contemplating linking to.
> #1 includes mplayer, xine w/DVD support, etc.
> #2 includes the Fluendo WMV codec plugin for gstreamer.
> #3 includes the Fluendo mp3 codec plugin for gstreamer.
> 
> If there were no legal issues, I'd like Fedora to be able to distribute,
> automatically install, point to, or otherwise make as easy as possible
> for users to get #1 and #3.  So the open-ended question posed to legal
> would be: how can we help end-users get #1 and #3.  #0 and #2 are
> proprietary software and are philosophically against the Fedora mission
> of providing a complete OS built on free software.
> 
> I think this is the basis of Max's original question of larger strategy.
> Does the Board and the people who make up the Project *desire* to make
> end-user's lives better WRT patent-encumbered free software or do we
> lump patent-encumbered free software in the same category as non-free?
> 
> So my personal open-ended question for legal would be: How can we help
> users get #1 and #3?
> 
> Targeted questions would be:
> * Can we point users at a repository we don't control that has #1, #3,
> and possibly things less legal (Since we don't control it)?
> * Can we point users to a specific package of #1 or #3 in another
> repository?
> * Can we download and attempt to install the package for the user in
> either of the above cases?

Why were there no replies here? As MPlayer developer and Livna contributor
I'm very much interested in answers to the above questions.

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DominikMierzejewski
Livna contributor http://rpm.livna.org MPlayer developer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]