the libdvdcss issue

[Richard Körber]

Hi!

I thought we have sorted that out. Do we really have to go through this
discussion again?

> Just ignore that issue. We should satisfy the majority's needs, and
> the majority of Fedora users (obviously) needs DVD playback (as well
> as other patents/crypto stuff). If that guy(s) stops contributing -
> that's not a problem at all. We easily find someone who will
> contribute instead.

It's not just about contributors. It's also about bloggers, wikis and
press. In a lot of countries it would not be allowed to link to RPMfusion
(or probably even mention its name) if RPMfusion offers software to
circumvent copy protection.

I will not repeat here what I said my last posting. Please feel free to
find it in the archive and read it.

The bottom line is: RPMfusion will not just lose some contributors, but
will lose a lot of free advertisement and public attention. Is this price
really worth to keep one single RPM package with no dependencies, that can
be easily installed with a one-liner from somewhere else?

For me it means that if RPMfusion is offering software that is illegal in
Germany, I will stop blogging about it in fedorablog.de and remove the
package lists from repowatch.fedorablog.de. You can blame me for being a
sissy, but I see no other option for me.


I am tired about this discussion. It cannot be that first we find
something that seemed like a consensus against libdvdcss, and then
suddenly voices appear again pro libdvdcss, and the discussion starts all
over again.

To the people who are responsible for RPMfusion: Please make up your mind,
and then make an official and irrevocable (!) commitment pro or contra
libdvdcss.

Even a commitment pro libdvdcss would be better than this state of
insecurity we currently have, IMHO.

Regards
-- 
Richard "Shred" Körber