On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 17:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Francis Earl wrote: > >> Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to > >> distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See > >> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_3-6161480.html. > >> That's just FYI. > > > > Wow, I always assumed such companies had legal access to MP3, and I was > > under the impression that it was really an enforced patent anyway. > > Definitely makes you think! > > Precisely. Pity that people still ask Fedora Project all the time to > distribute mp3 codecs without ever understanding the goals of the > project or the legal and financial risks. Exactly, although understand I'm not saying that. I'm fine with the current situation, with the addition of informing users better as to the real ramifications if RedHat did take such risks. > > Saying "this is illegal, so we don't do it" is not good enough in my > > opinion. Ill informed users will never make good choices. > > Sometimes we can't take the legal risk we won't do it like pointing to > third party repository that includes software that would infringe some > patents. That's not up for debate. I'm not saying that, I'm talking about actually informing users, rather than saying simply "no". It's hard for people to understand the real reasons without pointing out things like the article you pointed me to. Making such things easier for users to find and educate themselves would be a great start rather than basically avoiding the question. Perhaps if something good comes of the wiki page, even linking to that from apps when the user tries to open MP3's.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part