[Fwd: Re: Legality questions.... (<repositoryWhichShallNotBeNamed> & nVidia)]

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

CCing rpmfusion-developers, where more contributors watch

On 20.09.2008 08:14, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> 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>.

The plan was/still is to not offer the repos as 
download1.rpmfusion.org/{non,}free/ but also offer them as 
{non,}free.rpmfusion.org with a small Frontpage for each of them that 
mentions the most important things and points people to rpmfusion.org 
for more informations.

But I don't consider this domain name split one of the most important 
things, that's why I haven't worked on this.

Anyway: Do you think that's split with subdomains is "good enough"?

> 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).

Just a crazy idea: If mentioning RPM Fusion really is or becomes a 
problem why not create a completely new project somewhere with a totally 
separate domain name that does nothing else then providing the fglrx and 
nvidia driver packages from RPM Fusion in their repos? It should not be 
much more work then programming and maintaining a small script that 
mirrors just those drivers and created new repodata for each dir they 
are found in.

Cu
knurd

> -------- 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.
>