Legal update

[Bill Nottingham]

Rahul Sundaram (sundaram at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> 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.

In *either* case of what you're saying, the answer for 'from a dialog box
in codeina' is still no.

>>> 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.

Then don't repeatedly ask 'can we do X' when informed that the software
can't do X.

Bill