codec buddy pain

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:11 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 17:06 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Yes, exactly.  Chris' statement earlier seemed to imply we did
> > > something in F8 to make it technically possible to get legal codecs,
> > > where that really isn't the case.  It was just made easier.
> > >   
> > Easier is important.  But that's not the point.  I think that Seth's 
> > worried that we're using our valuable real estate to promote a company.  
> > A special exemption, if you will.  And I'm fine with it.  If there were 
> > another company you could get the same stuff from I would suggest that 
> > we add them as an option.  But we're not there right now.
> > 
> 
> My concern is the next time a company comes to us with the same.
> 
> Maybe they want a package in the distro which just installs a yum plugin
> and a .repo file.
> 
> The plugin pops up a message everytime you run yum in interactive which
> says "don't you need bitkeeper for all your software development needs?
> Press 'yes' here to have bitkeeper installed for you" And then it goes
> out to some repo and installs it for them.
> 
> Now, if this were a 'package' of some kind it might get rejected -
> though there's no reason in the packaging guidelines to do so. However,
> if the company behind bitkeeper came to us and agreed to give fedora/red
> hat a big lump of cash in exchange for us to include this package, by
> default, in the distro I want to be sure we have a reason/way to say no.
> 
> That's what I'm worried about.
> 
> unrelated: the above is an interesting use case for yum plugins :)

This is a really interesting discussion in that it begs the question of
why we have an advisory board or a Fedora Project Board.  If we could
codify every decision point, we could just write them in the wiki and
dissolve at least the actual authority group (FPB).  Sometimes the
reason "because it makes me break out in hives" is an OK answer.

What exactly are we afraid will happen if less virtuous company XYZ
approaches us in the fashion described above, with some offer that
really does make us break out in hives?  (I know that anything with any
currency symbol involved makes Seth break out in hives.  I understand.)
Is anyone worried that everyone on this list, or on the Board, will
suddenly have their eyeballs turn into big cartoon dollar signs, and
forget any semblance of FOSS ethics?  Are people who are likely to do
that also likely to be in a Fedora leadership position?

Originally the CodecBuddy idea came out of a motive of simply making
things easier on our users within US+etc. legal limits while
simultaneously educating them.  If the problem really is that we can't
prove that motive, I'd say welcome to politics.  I worry that trying to
have neat dividing lines prepared for fuzzy issues makes it easier to
push off responsibility for judgment calls on some piece of written
text.  And it makes it inevitable, rather than simply possible, that
you'll alienate community members by doing so, and probably more of them
to boot.

I don't see a real problem with Fluendo benefiting in some fashion from
codeina, as long as there's no lockout that prevents anyone else from
doing the same.  Fluendo has devoted very significant resources to FOSS,
and although the vouching in this case is in code form, the Fedora
community has vouched for other vendors similarly before (think Intel
for one).

-- 
Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
           Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20071105/d8398418/attachment.sig>