to autodownload or not to autodownload

[Hans de Goede]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> So why don't we just do the same with US users? Something like:
>> "If you are in a location where these patents apply (eg. US), there are
>> companies that provide legal software to play such formats"
>> would be enough, I think.
> 
> We are allowed to point to sources in this case. If you are in U.S and 
> other regions enforcing such patents, somebody has to pay for the patent 
> license. It might be hardware vendor, OS vendor or whatever. Hiding the 
> cost hides one of the fundamental problems that users need to understand 
> (ie) a completely free Fedora cannot include paid and proprietary 
> codecs. Highlighting the cost is part of the message that codeina 
> provides to the end users.

Ah, comeone "Highlighting the cost is part of the message that codeina
provides to the end users" ?? Thats just plain nonsense, the linking to must 
pay for codecs in codina is plain and simply _bad_, but for some reason 
condoned because the codec issue is a big problem for end users, so having some 
very ugly work around is seen as ok in this situation.

I must say however that I find promoting closed source software this way is way 
worse IMHO then many of the completely open, may be modified, redistributed 
modified and original, but may not be used commercial software which we are 
keeping out of Fedora.

Don't get me wrong I understand that no commercial use is a use restriction and 
therefor makes the affected software non free, although for me and many others 
the software i as free as free software, since I've no commercial plans with 
it. And since the affected software is non free I'm not arging for its 
inclusion, I'm arguing against codina!

Regards,

Hans