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

Re: Wording of Legal Issues myth

On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 23:54 -0500, Patrick Barnes wrote:
> The only real problem with those new changes is that ForbiddenItems does
> not and will not point users to other third-party plugins.  The
> technologies it refers to are part of Fedora Core and Extras, and it
> will not point to sources for proprietary plugins.  It only makes a
> vague reference to using Google.  That last bit of your changes will
> only serve to mislead users who may already be frustrated.  Because of
> this, I will remove that small bit. 

There's both the bit about google and the bit about checking
fedorafaq.org.  IMHO we have to address the fact that people may need to
use a specific format rather than an alternate.  To do that we have to
let them know that they can install plugins from third parties to make
that happen.  This can either be through the methods suggested at the
bottom of ForbiddenItems (indirect and possibly frustrating but it gets
people to scan through the list of legal problems and their OSS
alternatives on their way to a solution) or by placing some portion of
that information directly in FedoraMyths (such as my original
suggestion.  Can you come up with some variant of that which satisfies
your desire to not duplicate information on ForbiddenItems?)


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]