--- 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
