11:33 p.m.
Hi.
I'd like to bring up the topic once again. I've been discussing it with
Nicolas and noticed that both rpmfusion.pl and rpmfusion.fr domains are
free. Nicolas said he could arrange for hosting libdvdcss in France under
such domain and so could I, in Poland. Is it OK if we use the RPMFusion
name for that purpose or isn't it?
IIRC someone said earlier that some people wouldn't contribute to RPMFusion
if it was in any way associated with distribution of libdvdcss, but never
mentioned any names or what these contributors would bring to RPMFusion.
Frankly I'm a bit tired of this game, but I'm willing to do whatever
I can to provide users with complete DVD playback capability.
So what CAN I do?
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
6:14 a.m.
On 18.11.2008 00:33, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
I'd like to bring up the topic once again. I've been
discussing it with
Nicolas
Is there really something to discuss? As mentioned in some other mails
earlier: Livna is there, Livna will provide libdvdcss for the forseeable
future (that will include F10,) Livna is well known and Livna's key is
trusted. So I say we continue to use Livna (we likely could also use
freshrpms, if we prefer; or even both) as building something new really
seems just like wasted time and effort to me.
and noticed that both rpmfusion.pl and rpmfusion.fr domains are
free. Nicolas said he could arrange for hosting libdvdcss in France under
such domain and so could I, in Poland. Is it OK if we use the RPMFusion
name for that purpose or isn't it?
Strong -1 from my side -- that just creates confusion and could easily
backfire.
IIRC someone said earlier that some people wouldn't contribute to
RPMFusion
if it was in any way associated with distribution of libdvdcss, but never
mentioned any names or what these contributors would bring to RPMFusion.
Frankly I'm a bit tired of this game, but I'm willing to do whatever
I can to provide users with complete DVD playback capability.
So what CAN I do?
Simply do nothing. Or do you have a problem with leaving Livna running
just for libdvdcss?
If we want to create another repository that we IMHO should talk to the
tigro maintainer (see http://tigro.info/ and
http://mirror.yandex.ru/fedora/tigro/9/x86_64/ ) and try to convince him
to become a official add-on repository for RPM Fusion (e.g. no
replacements from Fedora or RPM Fusion), as he seems to be willing to
take packages that are normally not redistributable (flash-player; sun's
java).
CU
knurd
8:28 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 18.11.2008 00:33, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
<snip>
> IIRC someone said earlier that some people wouldn't
contribute to
> RPMFusion
> if it was in any way associated with distribution of libdvdcss, but never
> mentioned any names or what these contributors would bring to RPMFusion.
>
> Frankly I'm a bit tired of this game, but I'm willing to do whatever
> I can to provide users with complete DVD playback capability.
> So what CAN I do?
Simply do nothing. Or do you have a problem with leaving Livna running
just for libdvdcss?
Erm, 2 things:
1) lately livna has been slowly falling apart, of thats been fixed I'm all for
using livna, if not ...
2) we still need to make this work seamlessly for end users, so if we do this I
vote for putting a .repo file pointing to livna in rpmfusion-nonfree-release
Regards,
Hans
8:43 a.m.
On 18.11.2008 09:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 18.11.2008 00:33, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> IIRC someone said earlier that some people wouldn't contribute to
>> RPMFusion
>> if it was in any way associated with distribution of libdvdcss, but never
>> mentioned any names or what these contributors would bring to RPMFusion.
>>
>> Frankly I'm a bit tired of this game, but I'm willing to do whatever
>> I can to provide users with complete DVD playback capability.
>> So what CAN I do?
> Simply do nothing. Or do you have a problem with leaving Livna running
> just for libdvdcss?
Erm, 2 things:
1) lately livna has been slowly falling apart, of thats been fixed I'm all for
using livna, if not ...
No, it's not really "fixed". But that is afaics not needed -- it just
one package that needs is not updates much. So it can be simply build in
mock on some random system; older versions can stay in the repo, as they
don't take much space; pushed can be done manually.
IOW: SVN, plague, push-scripts are not really needed for such a minimal
Livna repo.
2) we still need to make this work seamlessly for end users, so if we
do this I
vote for putting a .repo file pointing to livna in rpmfusion-nonfree-release
I strongly vote against that. If I as user install a package foo-release
then I expect it to only install repo files for the repo "foo" and not
for random other 3rd party repos I might never have heard of or which I
might not want. And something like that could backfire on us/taint us
easily as well.
What I OTOH would like to see is would be some kind of small GUI that
you can use to enable other repos. That GUI could download and install
the release packages that those repos provide (hence the app needs to be
aware of the URLs to those release rpms), as long as those repos are
known to be compatible with RPM FUsion -- e.g. Livna, Google, Adobe's
repo, ...
Sure, that bears risks for us as well, but the risk is much much lower.
And it solves the problem for users that want the Google and Adobe
software as well, which would be a huge benefit.
CU
knurd
10:12 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 18.11.2008 09:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 18.11.2008 00:33, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>>> IIRC someone said earlier that some people wouldn't contribute to
>>> RPMFusion
>>> if it was in any way associated with distribution of libdvdcss, but
>>> never
>>> mentioned any names or what these contributors would bring to
>>> RPMFusion.
>>>
>>> Frankly I'm a bit tired of this game, but I'm willing to do whatever
>>> I can to provide users with complete DVD playback capability.
>>> So what CAN I do?
>> Simply do nothing. Or do you have a problem with leaving Livna
>> running just for libdvdcss?
> Erm, 2 things:
>
> 1) lately livna has been slowly falling apart, of thats been fixed I'm
> all for using livna, if not ...
No, it's not really "fixed". But that is afaics not needed -- it just
one package that needs is not updates much. So it can be simply build in
mock on some random system; older versions can stay in the repo, as they
don't take much space; pushed can be done manually.
IOW: SVN, plague, push-scripts are not really needed for such a minimal
Livna repo.
Ok.
> 2) we still need to make this work seamlessly for end users, so
if we
> do this I vote for putting a .repo file pointing to livna in
> rpmfusion-nonfree-release
I strongly vote against that. If I as user install a package foo-release
then I expect it to only install repo files for the repo "foo" and not
for random other 3rd party repos I might never have heard of or which I
might not want. And something like that could backfire on us/taint us
easily as well.
Well, it is not a random third party repo now is it, it is one of the repos
which make up the new rpmfusion, also we want this to work seamlessly. I agree
that we do not want to be including random third party repo references, but
this is neither random nor 3th party.
What I OTOH would like to see is would be some kind of small GUI that
you can use to enable other repos. That GUI could download and install
the release packages that those repos provide (hence the app needs to be
aware of the URLs to those release rpms), as long as those repos are
known to be compatible with RPM FUsion -- e.g. Livna, Google, Adobe's
repo, ...
Yes a tool where you can click install adobe flashplayer / install adobe reader
/ install google earth would be great. But I think it should be about
installing apps, not about repo's, as people want apps not repos. That this
enables repos under the hood is something which we should make clear to the end
user. I do however not believe that this is the answer for libdvdcss, what I
would like to see for libdvdcss is:
rpm -ivh http://.......rpmfusion-nonfree-release.....rpm
yum install libdvdcss
To just work, this is way too convoluted IMHO:
rpm -ivh http://.......rpmfusion-nonfree-release.....rpm
yum install thirdparty-repo-enabler
thirdparty-repo-enabler
<click, click, wait, click>
yum install libdvdcss
Regards,
Hans
10:42 a.m.
On 18.11.2008 11:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 18.11.2008 09:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> 2) we still need to make this work seamlessly for end users, so if we
>> do this I vote for putting a .repo file pointing to livna in
>> rpmfusion-nonfree-release
> I strongly vote against that. If I as user install a package foo-release
> then I expect it to only install repo files for the repo "foo" and not
> for random other 3rd party repos I might never have heard of or which I
> might not want. And something like that could backfire on us/taint us
> easily as well.
Well, it is not a random third party repo now is it,
For current users: no. But I bet in a year or two new Fedora users will
get confused and start to answer question.
it is one of the repos
which make up the new rpmfusion, also we want this to work seamlessly.
Enabling a repository that ships libdvdcss automatically is nearly just
as bad as shipping it directly in our repos (¹). It hence would
pollute/taint RPM Fusion and imho is a completely no go.
Yes a tool where you can click install adobe flashplayer / install
adobe reader
/ install google earth would be great. But I think it should be about
installing apps, not about repo's, as people want apps not repos. That this
enables repos under the hood is something which we should make clear to the end
user. I do however not believe that this is the answer for libdvdcss, what I
would like to see for libdvdcss is:
rpm -ivh http://.......rpmfusion-nonfree-release.....rpm
yum install libdvdcss
To just work, this is way too convoluted IMHO:
rpm -ivh http://.......rpmfusion-nonfree-release.....rpm
yum install thirdparty-repo-enabler
thirdparty-repo-enabler
<click, click, wait, click>
yum install libdvdcss
Sure, the latter is a bit more complicated, but imho it's the right
thing to do, especially as the user might do something that is illegal
in his country.
CU
knurd
(¹) the reasons are similar to the reasons why Fedora doesn't even link
to RPM Fusion
10:57 a.m.
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 11:42, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 18.11.2008 11:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
[...]
>it is one of the repos
>which make up the new rpmfusion, also we want this to work seamlessly.
Enabling a repository that ships libdvdcss automatically is nearly just
as bad as shipping it directly in our repos (¹). It hence would
pollute/taint RPM Fusion and imho is a completely no go.
[...]
>To just work, this is way too convoluted IMHO:
>rpm -ivh http://.......rpmfusion-nonfree-release.....rpm
>yum install thirdparty-repo-enabler
>thirdparty-repo-enabler
><click, click, wait, click>
>yum install libdvdcss
Sure, the latter is a bit more complicated, but imho it's the right
thing to do, especially as the user might do something that is illegal
in his country.
I thought only distribution of unauthorized binaries that allow you
to access CSS-obfuscated content was illegal in some countries,
but please feel free to point me to an article of law that says that
playback of a legally purchased DVD is a crime, too.
(¹) the reasons are similar to the reasons why Fedora doesn't
even link
to RPM Fusion
I thought one of the main points of creating RPMFusion was to allow Fedora
to link to us. If that doesn't happen, we might as well keep libdvdcss.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
11:24 a.m.
Hi!
I thought only distribution of unauthorized binaries that allow you
to access CSS-obfuscated content was illegal in some countries,
but please feel free to point me to an article of law that says that
playback of a legally purchased DVD is a crime, too.
§95a UrhG ( http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/95a.html )
It states that it is not allowed to circumvent a copy protection without
approval of the copyright holder, in order to gain access to the content.
Regards
--
Richard "Shred" Körber
1:06 p.m.
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 12:24, Richard Körber wrote:
Hi!
> I thought only distribution of unauthorized binaries that allow you
> to access CSS-obfuscated content was illegal in some countries,
> but please feel free to point me to an article of law that says that
> playback of a legally purchased DVD is a crime, too.
§95a UrhG ( http://dejure.org/gesetze/UrhG/95a.html )
It states that it is not allowed to circumvent a copy protection without
approval of the copyright holder, in order to gain access to the content.
It only speaks about effective measures. CSS is not an effective measure:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070525-finland-court-breaking-inef...
And even if we assume it is, posession and use is only forbidden for commercial
purposes, so you can use libdvdcss in the comfort of your home for personal
playback.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
11 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 18.11.2008 11:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 18.11.2008 09:28, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>>> 2) we still need to make this work seamlessly for end users, so if
>>> we do this I vote for putting a .repo file pointing to livna in
>>> rpmfusion-nonfree-release
>> I strongly vote against that. If I as user install a package
>> foo-release then I expect it to only install repo files for the repo
>> "foo" and not for random other 3rd party repos I might never have
>> heard of or which I might not want. And something like that could
>> backfire on us/taint us easily as well.
> Well, it is not a random third party repo now is it,
For current users: no. But I bet in a year or two new Fedora users will
get confused and start to answer question.
> it is one of the repos which make up the new rpmfusion, also we want
> this to work seamlessly.
Enabling a repository that ships libdvdcss automatically is nearly just
as bad as shipping it directly in our repos (¹). It hence would
pollute/taint RPM Fusion and imho is a completely no go.
Erm, shipping a file containing a link is something very different from
shipping, and if we ship a third party repo enablement tool we will be in
effect doing the same.
Also this seems to be an ever sliding issue, first we would ship it despite the
concerns of a few, then you changed your mind and I and others reluctantly
agreed, but we also agreed we would come up with some seamless integration
solution. And now we are also slipping from the seamless integration solution
to some horrible convoluted hack. I'm very unhappy about this. Esp. about how
you seem to keep coming back upon made decisions.
(¹) the reasons are similar to the reasons why Fedora doesn't
even link
to RPM Fusion
And Fedora Legal actually has cleared doing that (linking to rpmfusion from the
wiki), this is something which still has to be implemented, but the permission
is there. This was one of the main reasons to do the free / non-free split, to
give Fedora something it can link to without even giving the appearance of
promoting non free software.
Regards,
Hans
12:27 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Hans de Goede wrote:
Also this seems to be an ever sliding issue, first we would ship it
despite the
concerns of a few, then you changed your mind and I and others reluctantly
agreed, but we also agreed we would come up with some seamless integration
solution. And now we are also slipping from the seamless integration solution
to some horrible convoluted hack. I'm very unhappy about this. Esp. about how
you seem to keep coming back upon made decisions.
Agreed. I find it a bit woeful as well that we're reneging on decisions we
made during the forming of rpmfusion.
On the other hand, Thorsten is doing much much much more work for rpmfusion then
I've ever done. Thus I'm inclined to just shut up and accept it.
And Fedora Legal actually has cleared doing that (linking to
rpmfusion from the
wiki), this is something which still has to be implemented, but the permission
is there. This was one of the main reasons to do the free / non-free split, to
give Fedora something it can link to without even giving the appearance of
promoting non free software.
Do not forget that one of the main reasons for fusion was the plan to
implement the Fedora + 1 repository concept for all software needs.
Right now we're probably at Fedora + rpmfusion + livna + adobe...
That's at least one, possibly two to many.
regards,
andreas
1:09 p.m.
New subject: Reducing the number of necessary repos with non-free software (was Re: the libdvdcss issue)
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 13:27, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Hans de Goede wrote:
[...]
> And Fedora Legal actually has cleared doing that (linking to
rpmfusion from the
> wiki), this is something which still has to be implemented, but the permission
> is there. This was one of the main reasons to do the free / non-free split, to
> give Fedora something it can link to without even giving the appearance of
> promoting non free software.
Do not forget that one of the main reasons for fusion was the plan to
implement the Fedora + 1 repository concept for all software needs.
Right now we're probably at Fedora + rpmfusion + livna + adobe...
I wonder if we could arrange an agreement with Adobe to let us distribute
the Flash Plugin as an RPM package. Maybe Adobe Reader too.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
2:14 p.m.
New subject: Reducing the number of necessary repos with non-free software (was Re: the libdvdcss issue)
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 13:27, Andreas Thienemann wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Hans de Goede wrote:
[...]
>> And Fedora Legal actually has cleared doing that (linking to rpmfusion from the
>> wiki), this is something which still has to be implemented, but the permission
>> is there. This was one of the main reasons to do the free / non-free split, to
>> give Fedora something it can link to without even giving the appearance of
>> promoting non free software.
> Do not forget that one of the main reasons for fusion was the plan to
> implement the Fedora + 1 repository concept for all software needs.
> Right now we're probably at Fedora + rpmfusion + livna + adobe...
I wonder if we could arrange an agreement with Adobe to let us distribute
the Flash Plugin as an RPM package. Maybe Adobe Reader too.
iirc, Warren Togami was the one who first ship the flash package in a
yum repo, with the agreement of Adobe. It might worth sending him a mail.
Regards,
Xavier
12:20 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Sure, the latter is a bit more complicated, but imho it's the
right
thing to do, especially as the user might do something that is illegal
in his country.
I do not consider it our job to prevent people doing illegal acts.
Furthermore, the legality of decss is varying widely on a global scale.
If something is possible to ship, do it and let the end user worry about
the consequences. Realistically speaking, I think we're giving the DeCSS
issue way more thought then it deserves. Realistically thinking, nobody is
going to be sued over a piece of software which was last in the news
nearly ten years ago when 2600 did the CSS stunt.
If our distribution sites are okay with it and we have a packager who's
willing to touch it, we should ship it IMHO.
Right now the discussion about libdvdcss seems to me to be rather
inconsistent. The reasons being put forward why we're not shipping decss
code can be equally applied to other pieces of code in our repo.
regards,
andreas
12:41 p.m.
Hello!
2008/11/18 Andreas Thienemann <andreas(a)bawue.net>:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Sure, the latter is a bit more complicated, but imho it's the right
> thing to do, especially as the user might do something that is illegal
> in his country.
I do not consider it our job to prevent people doing illegal acts.
+1
--
With best regards!
3:52 p.m.
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello!
2008/11/18 Andreas Thienemann <andreas(a)bawue.net>:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>> Sure, the latter is a bit more complicated, but imho it's the right
>> thing to do, especially as the user might do something that is illegal
>> in his country.
> I do not consider it our job to prevent people doing illegal acts.
+1
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
or the more general:
2. journalists/websites cannot mention rpmfusion either
or even
3. losing rpmfusion contributors
I feel any or all of these probably trump the issue, imo.
Blarg, I've said my piece, so I'll shut up now.
(wishlist/todo: create a FAQ on the wiki for this very issue, so we
don't need to rehash/rediscuss it every few weeks). :)
-- Rex
4:17 p.m.
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.
3. losing rpmfusion contributors
That is the only valid reason of not shipping it.
(wishlist/todo: create a FAQ on the wiki for this very issue, so we
don't need to rehash/rediscuss it every few weeks). :)
Problem is, it's not question which can be answered in a definite way. As
I mentioned earlier on IRC:
Whether libdvdcss is acceptable or not depends on your point of view and
the way you're rating the software we ship.
There are people who think that libdvdcss is evil and the rest we ship is
okay.
I'm seeing things a bit different: slmodem which I'm maintaining has some
proprietary stuff needed to drive the modem I bought. This is delivered as
a i386 shared object file with some pieces of GPL code around it.
This is evil.
libdvdcss on the other hand is a clean, suprisingly small and
best of all completely open source library implementing a (admittedly bad)
algorithm I need in order to watch many of my bought and paid for movies.
I'd rate this piece of software much higher then libdvdcss.
The fact that my politicians decided that it's their job to keep me from
watching my bought DVDs is a shame.
Firebombing might solve that problem. Not shipping libdvdcss because of
some american and german politicians is not the right solution.
regards,
andreas
4:30 p.m.
Andreas Thienemann wrote:
> (wishlist/todo: create a FAQ on the wiki for this very issue, so
we
> don't need to rehash/rediscuss it every few weeks). :)
Problem is, it's not question which can be answered in a definite way.
The FAQ should state *facts*, and the already-mentioned-many-times
issues on both sides, and leave conclusions and opinions out of it.
-- Rex
6:01 p.m.
--- 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
10:56 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Orcan Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
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?
Assuming the disclaimer is a viable option, PackageKit has all the
bits to show EULAs to the end user
--
Gianluca Sforna
http://morefedora.blogspot.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna
3:35 p.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 18.11.2008 11:12, Hans de Goede wrote:
> it is one of the repos which make up the new rpmfusion, also we
want
> this to work seamlessly.
Enabling a repository that ships libdvdcss automatically is nearly just
as bad as shipping it directly in our repos (¹). It hence would
pollute/taint RPM Fusion and imho is a completely no go.
+1
-- Rex
4:37 a.m.
Hans de Goede wrote:
That this enables repos under the hood is something which we should
make
clear to the end user. I do however not believe that this is the answer
for libdvdcss, what I would like to see for libdvdcss is:
rpm -ivh http://.......rpmfusion-nonfree-release.....rpm
yum install libdvdcss
Why nonfree? It is GPLv2+, can't get much more Free Software.
Kevin Kofler
10:31 a.m.
Hello All!
2008/11/18 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net>:
IIRC someone said earlier that some people wouldn't contribute to
RPMFusion
if it was in any way associated with distribution of libdvdcss, but never
mentioned any names or what these contributors would bring to RPMFusion.
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.
That unnamed guy(s) should complain to his(their) government rather
than trying to complicate our lives.
Frankly I'm a bit tired of this game, but I'm willing to do
whatever
I can to provide users with complete DVD playback capability.
So what CAN I do?
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
--
With best regards!
11:18 a.m.
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
12:38 p.m.
Hello!
2008/11/18 Richard Körber <rpmfusion(a)ml.shredzone.de>:
> 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.
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.
Not an issue. People should complain to their governments. There are
tons of prohibitions all around the world - we have no moral rights to
obey all these laws (therefore supporting different kinds of
censorship).
The bottom line is: RPMfusion will not just lose some contributors,
but
will lose a lot of free advertisement and public attention.
What countries have laws which prohibits mentioning addresses of
web-servers? Just curious. Even ThePirateBay can be named in wast
majority of countries.
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.
What about news about ThePirateBay in German newspapers? Also, I'm
just curious. In any case - feel free to stop advertising RPMFusion if
it potentially could hurt you. However I still see no reasons to obey
your country's laws. If we'll decide to remove all restricted (in some
countries) software from RPMFusion when I see no reason why to abandon
Livna in favor of less-functional castrated repository?
BTW I probably can find you good hosting in Russia, where you can hide
your identity from your country's RIAA/MPAA. Looks like despite of all
moves of our Russian government against our opposition, we still live
on more free country than you, in Europe (at least we allowed to free
talk).
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.
Agree.
People in free countries need to know whether they need to create (and
work on) their local repositories or we may rely on RPMFusion.
I personally afraid that after removing libdvdcss, there will be
another one restricted in some particular country library or utility,
and another one, and another one...
--
With best regards!
1:28 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Richard Körber wrote:
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.
Nobody is calling anybody a sissy. The problem however is, that there are
many different laws on the globe. Just following the least common
denominator means we can close down.
Same for fedora. There is a lot of code in fedora which is able to
circumvent copy protection measures. Or even worse, do you remember the
Copy Protection Measure which was based on the Autorun functionality of
Windows? IIRC correctly someone was sued for mentioning that disabling
Autorun will prevent the Copy Protection from working.
Right now fedora does not even have a Windows compatible Autorun
functionality. We're all gonna die^H^H^Hbe sued...
Do you see why I consider the whole "let's not ship it, it's illegal in
some place" to be highly hypocritical?
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.
You joined up late. The initial idea was to ship libdvdcss but that was
later retracted. Unfortunately
regards,
andreas
1:38 p.m.
Hi,
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.
please name these countries
- you refer to the mail archive, ok, Germany was mentioned(*), so
it is the first one on the list, and what are the others?
if you can't, stop saying "a lot of ..."
(*) without any exact reference, just that some newspaper was
sued for something which was not even remotely quoted
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?
as Peter said, what "single RPM package with no dependencies,
that can be easily installed with a one-liner from somewhere
else" will be the next?
and what about taking it the other way round, is it worth to lose
encrypted DVD support for all our users which brings us a lot of
public attention, is this price really worth to keep one single
country in the set of contributors?
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.
I second that ... but ... who is that?
do we have any structure like Fedora has? - I do not see anything
on the wiki
K.
1:57 p.m.
On 18.11.2008 14:38, Karel Volný wrote:
> 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.
I second that ... but ... who is that?
http://rpmfusion.org/ -> SteeringCommittee
http://rpmfusion.org/SteeringCommittee
Note: Afaics most of us prefer to discuss and decide things without
involving the steering committee.
But whatever. Quoting from above page.
[...] Therefore libdvdcss is being dropped. [...]
That is on that page for over a year now.
CU
knurd
2:43 p.m.
hi,
>> 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.
>
> I second that ... but ... who is that?
http://rpmfusion.org/ -> SteeringCommittee
http://rpmfusion.org/SteeringCommittee
well, I got that page wrong
"I would like to suggest the following representatives" does not
sound so definitive
But whatever. Quoting from above page.
> [...] Therefore libdvdcss is being dropped. [...]
That is on that page for over a year now.
I did not notice, sorry, my bad
I must be sleeping or what ... the second thing is that I got
the "irrevocable" wrong; what I meant when I said I second that
is that no single person can deny it, but looking into
dictionary - no, I do not think that we need any unchangeable
dogma
K.
4:29 p.m.
On 18.11.2008 15:43, Karel Volný wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I second that ... but ... who is that?
> http://rpmfusion.org/ -> SteeringCommittee
> http://rpmfusion.org/SteeringCommittee
well, I got that page wrong
"I would like to suggest the following representatives" does not
sound so definitive
Yeah, that page (and several others) likely need some love (and several
things are no properly documented yet). And maybe we should extend the
steering committee to 5 people or something.
> But whatever. Quoting from above page.
>> [...] Therefore libdvdcss is being dropped. [...]
> That is on that page for over a year now.
I did not notice, sorry, my bad
Np. And just a note: my mail wasn't meant as a "shut up, it's written
there". I hope it didn't came over as such.
I must be sleeping or what ... the second thing is that I got
the "irrevocable" wrong; what I meant when I said I second that
is that no single person can deny it, but looking into
dictionary - no, I do not think that we need any unchangeable
dogma
Yeah, you might have a point.
Cu
knurd
5832
days inactive
5853
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
30 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Andreas Thienemann -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Gianluca Sforna -
Hans de Goede -
Karel Volný -
Kevin Kofler -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Peter Lemenkov -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rex Dieter -
Richard Körber -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Xavier Bachelot