libdvdcss in RPM Fusion ?

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2016-09-06 at 12:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 10:03 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > 
> > 2016-09-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de>:
> > > 
> > > On 09/01/2016 06:56 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this?
> > > libdvdcss's legal situation in Germany is widely unclear[1].
> > > 
> > > According to German laws cracking "wirksame technische Maßnahmen“
> > > ("effective technical measures") of copy protection is unlawful.
> > > 
> > > The fundamental question in this context is: "Does CSS (still)
> > > qualify as an
> > > effective technical measures of copy protection?"
> > > 
> > > Answer: Nobody knows. Only courts would be able to answer this
> > > question.
> > > 
> > > I.e. the legal risks of libdvdcss have not changed for years,
> > > i.e. should
> > > libdvdcss binaries enter RPMFusion, esp. German RPMFusion mirror
> > > owners/mirror managers are not unlikely to be confronted with
> > > legal action.
> > How many legal action have occurred ?
> AFAICT, none. I am inclined to believe all German sites shied away
> from 
> shipping libdvdcss, to avoid these risks.

Reading this thread and think about, my conclusion is: that is an kind
of politic decision ... , and maybe we should contact a lawyer. One
idea/suggestion that I recalled, is workaround the problem of legality
doing a statement like "we remove package if someone ask for it with
one legal support decision" , the fact is : we don't have an expressed
decision that is nonlegal , so until then we may consider legal, if
someone "ask" to remove wiit based on some law, we remove it and don't
have problem, anyway a lawyer can help in terms that we can use .
I prefer not have an special repo and keep it simple. 

> Ralf
-- 
Sérgio M. B.