Legal update

[Rahul Sundaram]

Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: 
>> I had the impression that it was about linking to the repository package 
>> directly instead of just the website? If even linking to the website itself 
>> from a dialog box in codeina is not ok with Red Hat Legal,
> 
> It's not. What part of 'you may not link to the repository in the software'
> is hard to understand?

The "repository" might mean either a website that hosts the repository 
or a .repo or repo release rpm file. There might be a legal difference 
in between these. I am merely asking for some clarifications.

>> update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy or in the second dialog 
>> where it lists the Fluendo codecs, we could introduce a new link that says 
>> "click here for free alternatives" or something similar. Is that ok?
> 
> Again, that second dialog is in the software itself, populated from the
> XML file.

Click here for free alternatives could lead to some page in the Fedora 
wiki which then would lead to the third party repository. I don't know 
the implementation details enough to know whether it is possible 
currently. If not, it could probably be modified to do this. The 
question I am asking is really whether we want to do this or not in the 
first place.

Rahul