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

Re: to autodownload or not to autodownload



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


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