let me continue the below discussion from the internal Red Hat list here. Did anybody think about the issue mentioned below? Meaning that if there is only domain rpmfusion.org, employees of Red Hat may be as barred from talking about it from fear of possible contributory infringment as they are now forbidden to talk about <repositoryWhichShallNotBeNamed>.

I am not a lawyer anymore and I am not 100% sure about the legal implications of having separate domain names (and no I haven't asked RH legal), but did anybody think whether the current development of rpmfusion means, that I still won't be able to talk about nvidia binary-only drivers (for example)? (and I am from xorg team in RH, so I hate nvidia drivers as a matter of principle, but it is obvious that some of our users when they have to pick between non-functional nv driver and binary-only nvidia, pick the latter one).

-------- Přeposlaná zpráva -------- > Předmět: Re: Legality questions.... (<domanWhichShallNotBeNamed> & > nVidia) > Datum: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:26:28 +0530 > > Matěj Cepl wrote: >> Rahul Sundaram píše v So 30. 08. 2008 v 07:53 +0530: >>>> Alexander Oliva suggested to split <domanWhichShallNotBeNamed> > into two independent >>>> repositories -- one (using Debian terminology) non-free and other > non-us >>>> I don't know if anything came out of this idea. Although, I am > afraid, >>>> even European Red Hat employess wouldn't be allowed to talk about > non-us >>>> repository. >>> Rpmfusion.org is doing just that per my suggestion. They have two >>> repositories. free vs non-free. >> Except that if this will be one server, we won't be able to talk > about >> it anyway, because mentioning rpmfusion.org could be equivalent to >> mentioning rpm.<domanWhichShallNotBeNamed>.org (even though we would > really like to point to >> free patent-free software not in Fedora repositories). Or there will > be >> two domains? > I am not sure they are planning on two domains. Feel free to talk to > them about it assuming you are sure of the legal implications.