Codec Buddy misleading.

[Paul Wouters]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Matej Cepl wrote:

> > version that includes it. Say in a German-only repository on german
> > servers (and mirrors outside of red hat's control).
>
> Don't go there -- you are trying to do an analysis of the venue for
> litigation in the international context. That's one of the most
> complicated things you can do in the international private law. I have
> two law degrees, one from U.S. university dealing explicitly with the
> international law, and still I wouldn't be very sure what the result of
> such analysis is.

Yes I know. And I understand. And I agree. However, as I stated in th
part that you did not quote, then CodecBuddy should just not exist and
the community should find it like it has before (eg via livna).

The current solution makes RedHat's impact on Fedora US-centric. Now I
understand they don't want to risk international litigation. But the
current solution is wrong on many points:

- It gives false information to non-US users of Fedora
- It promots proprietary non-free software
- It promits non-free over free software for non-US users of Fedora

So the question comes down to: Do we tell where americans can find
workarounds for the failed patent system in the US at the expense of
mis-informing everyone else? Or do we just keep quiet and let people
find out for themselves? Or do we distinguish US and non-US users
similarly to the old days style "crypto export regulations".

> Translated into plain English -- bad idea.

So tell me your idea on how we can better inform the internationa
community about patents and codecs, without discriminating against
non-US users of Fedora. Because the current idea of pretending
international users of Fedora don't exist just before Red Hat is
an American company is worse then keeping quiet like we did pre-F8.

Paul