Re: the libdvdcss issue
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
Hello Rex,
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Rex Dieter wrote:
[Not shipping something in order to prevent people from
comitting legally
questionable acts in their locale]
> I am swayed by that argument, but this is a special
case.
> I'm still very concerned over issues around
> 1. fedora being able to refer to rpmfusion
Fedora is not able to refer to ATRpms or Dag either IIRC.
Yet they have
quite a lot of users, right?
> or the more general:
> 2. journalists/websites cannot mention rpmfusion
either
> or even
Same as above.
I don't quite understand why they can't refer to rpmfusion-free.
rpmfusion-nonfree, on the other hand, is the best place for distributing such stuff
(Sun's java, libdvdcss, flash (if we can get the permission) ). I see nothing wrong in
putting such a gap between rpmfusion-free and rpmfusion-nonfree. libdvdcss is more of a
hardware driver. Lots of people have the hardware and most of them are allowed to use this
driver for their hardware where they live, so why not let them have it?
I believe that we should put a disclaimer notice on the rpmfusion-nonfree-release RPM,
telling the users that it is their responsibility to check the license and the legal
issues by installing any package from this repo.
The disclaimer notice should pop up when someone installs this repository RPM. What is the
possibility of doing this or something with the same effect?
-oget