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
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
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
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
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
Hello!
2008/11/18 Andreas Thienemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
Hello!
2008/11/18 Richard Körber [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello!
2008/11/18 Andreas Thienemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
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
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
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
--- 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
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Orcan Ogetbil [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 12:18 +0100, Richard Körber wrote:
For me it means that if RPMfusion is offering software that is illegal in
Germany,
reference?
To my knowledge, libdvdcss legal position is questionable and unclear in
Germany, but so for has not been proven illegal.
Ralf
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
