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

Wording of Legal Issues myth



I read the Fedora Myths page today and thought the legal issues entry
was a bit on the conservative side.  I'd like to see it be a little more
explicit about the situation:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraMyths#head-37a0662e90f2aaad2607986eb8fad7b80da09982

I would like to change this paragraph:
  For example, Fedora includes several media players that support a wide
  range of formats, but not does not supply plug-ins for media formats 
  that are restricted by patent licenses or legislation. 

To this:
  For example, Fedora includes several media players that support a
  wide range of free and open formats but none that depend on formats
  that are restricted by patent licenses or legislation.  The Fedora
  project realizes that many of our users are legally allowed to use
  these proprietary codecs so we package media players that are
  extensible via plugins.  This allows third parties that are legally
  allowed to distribute the codecs to make them available as plugin
  packages that will work with our media players.

Does this cross the line to contributory infringement?  It doesn't
mention any specific places a person can download from.  It covers users
granted licenses by the owning companies as well as users in countries
where the patents are not valid.  It doesn't encourage anyone to do
anything that is illegal; only points out that plugin packages are
available on the internet for those who have a right to use them.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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