Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:36 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
encoders/decoders is available.

Fair point. However the precise nature of the difference between Fedora
and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. On both systems
the user can install propietary codecs, and on both systems there are
clear warnings that this is "at your own risk" and the proprietary stuff
is not installed by default. The practical difference from the user's
point of view is that Ubuntu tells you how to get it and Fedora doesn't
(the fact that Ubuntu actually hosts some of it is to my mind a red
herring; they could just as easily provide pointers to 3rd-party sites
if they were worried about keeping legal distance, so apparently they
aren't worried about it).

It may also be relevant that Red Hat is a US company, and Canonical
isn't, and that US law allows software patents, and many other countries
don't (yet), but IANAL of course.

poc

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:57 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company
to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red
Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it.

Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3'

Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't
licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed
it from the wrong people.

Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and
Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart
to distribute this stuff.

Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low
market share that it's not worth it today.

AFAIK he doesn't "distribute" it (for some meaning of "distribute"),
just makes it easy to get. I may be wrong (and I've no interest in
arguing about it), but I think the Fedora rationale for not doing the
same thing has more to do with avoiding lockin than avoiding lawsuits.

poc

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 14:29 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
The only real benefits of Ubuntu are proprietary drivers by default, and
easier access to patent encumbered codecs... catering to users so much
is why Ubuntu is so popular... no other reason.

How dare they offer something that users want :-)

poc





--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... Fedora and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. ... how to install things that violate US law is that it is considered ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... Red Hat is a public company, ... However the precise nature of the difference between Fedora ... and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. ... the user can install propietary codecs, and on both systems there are ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... easier access to patent encumbered codecs... ... Fedora has a different mandate: ... I think the Ubuntu way is also somewhat dangerous. ... Also, Red Hat commits more to various upstream projects like the kernel, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... Fedora and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. ... how to install things that violate US law is that it is considered ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Qs for senior fedora/redhat admins
    ... and codecs, the stuff thats commonly used by everyone who don't care about ... something like Ubuntu, where as there is a "restricted" installed by ... Users may not care but Fedora is legally based in US and doesn't operate in the same environment that Canonical entity behind Ubuntu) works. ...
    (Fedora)
Loading