Legal Update

[Rahul Sundaram]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 20:23 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry if I was unclear.  My point was that trying to walk this
>>> particular legal line -- a very fine one at that -- is making the value
>>> of our possibly-soon-to-be-published verbiage practically nil. 
>> Are you considering the entire workflow?
>>
>> 1) Click on a MPEG file
>> 2) A dialog explains why we support open non-patent encumbered formats
>> 3) Another dialog which offers the Fluendo codecs/ "Click here for 
>> alternatives"
>> 4) User chooses to click on alternatives link
>> 5) Gets directed to Fedora wiki page which has a link to RPM Fusion 
>> website or a repo file or package (Which spot has confirmed recently 
>> that Legal is ok with)
>> 6) Installs software with a single click via Pirut
>>
>> How is this not an advantage over the current situation?
> 
> I understand this workflow fine, but "Joe User" has no way of figuring
> out which package is the one to install for <encumbered_codec> once he
> has his repo configured, meaning our links haven't helped him.

7) RPM Fusion website explains in great detail which package he needs 
for what functionality.

Rahul