Codec buddy and Free software

[Max Spevack]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> It appears as a result of this decision we might be able to point to a 
> third party repository as a alternative to the Fluendo codecs. We had 
> a long discussion in Fedora Project Board list before and there has 
> been no consensus so far in this issue even assuming this is a legally 
> valid solution. There was questions raised about whether this violates 
> the GPL license and I have received clarification from FSF that it 
> would not (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF).
>
> I would like to get comments on whether folks here are favorable to 
> pointing to a third party repository from codec buddy (with 
> appropriate warnings and disclaimers). If this is considered something 
> we wanted to do we will consult with Red Hat legal to verify that is a 
> legally safe choice for us. Comments?

The was this needs to be approached is just like all the other Features 
we're trying to develop.

1) Acknowledge that the "scope" of what was supposed to be Codec Buddy 6 
months ago *may have changed* as a result of the court decision that 
Rahul mentioned.

2) Have someone who cares enough about this particular feature commit 
themselves to being the owner, and commit themselves to participating in 
the feature process as run by John Poelstra.  Maybe Rahul is this 
person.

3) Re-scope the entire strategy of what Codec Buddy was meant to do, 
what new options may be available now that weren't six months ago, and 
make very clear what the options are.

4) Ask f-a-b for a decision, escalating to f-p-b if need be.

5) Clear options with Legal.

6) Do it.