Linking to mp3 decoders

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 11:13 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> (moving this discussion on-list for clarity)
> 
> On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 12:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > I found this article on the Red Hat website which explicitly links to 
> > mp3 decoders. http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html. If this is 
> > legally safe we might as well as bless fedorafaq(.org) as our official 
> > one and point it in our release notes or even download the mp3 decoder 
> > automatically from the net when the user tries to play an mp3 file. We 
> > might to have get feedback from our legal department on this but I 
> > thought I would let you know
> 
> Word I got today was that we are OK to link to a site that discusses
> these issues, as that page does.  We cannot link to a site that directly
> offers the questionable items for download.  That could be "contributory
> infringement."
> 
> So, we cannot necessarily use the content from FedoraFAQ as-is
> ourselves, but we can link to it, saying, "For information about using
> MP3s, this site discusses that."  As long as they don't have direct
> links to packages that might contain infringing materials.  Then we
> can't link to them.
> 
> Clear as mud?
> 
> We need to review how FedoraFAQ.org handles these items _before_ using
> them as a reference.

Here's my take on this topic, since it's been around the list several
times before.  I think this is good enough for a FAQ at the wiki, for
that matter!

I'm not really comfortable with the idea of keeping tabs on
FedoraFAQ.org, for no other reason than that we have other things to do,
and I don't feel anyone there should feel pressured, not that they
necessarily would, to meet a standard we're setting as an "official"
project.  Here's a couple interesting rhetorical questions:  How often
shall we review their site for content that adheres to our legal
requirements?  Doesn't shifting case law in a specific territory change
our legal requirements in that territory?  And how does any of this
further the mission of the Fedora Project, which is to offer an
operating system and tools that are 100% free?

Brief aside:  I like MP3s.  I like the way they sound, which -- the way
I encode at least -- is better than Ogg, and not as good as the original
16b/44k WAV's on the CD's from which they were made.  (Any arguments on
this point, which is purely a matter of opinion, should go to me
personally and not to the list, please; let's not bore the readership.)

That doesn't change the fact that the method is legally encumbered in
certain territories in a way that is *completely incompatible* with the
stated philosophy, mission, and goals of the Fedora Project, which is to
provide a 100% free operating system.  Linking to information to reduce
the 100% figure to something less runs counter to that philosophy.

The link on the Red Hat site has nothing whatsoever to do with this
issue.  Red Hat has linked before to this type of information, and may
again in the future.  What Red Hat does is not what Fedora does,
although surely each one affects the other.

I like our previous solution to this problem, which was to simply
suggest a Google search.  Let's stop trying to cut this issue as close
as we can.  Let's stop trying to figure out how to get around the
mission of the project, and simply work within it.  Most of all, let's
stop wasting time and bandwidth on this issue... The time that we spend
on yet another round of discussing a problem which, in my opinion at
least, we already successfully solved could be better spent:

1. Reviewing the Documentation Guide and setting up a TODO for overhaul
2. Recruiting writers
3. Editing several docs that are still in Bugzilla (how about that
Samba-LDAP one? or ClamAV? I could use help on either, and they need to
be updated...)
4. Everything else I forgot because I'm getting tired

All right, sorry to rant at the end there.  But seriously, the horse on
the OR table isn't breathing, and I, for one, would really like to call
this one....  ;-)

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20050421/7ce344f7/attachment.sig>