Self Introduction: Frank

[Rahul Sundaram]

Francis Earl wrote:
>> Access is just one issue. Distribution is another. When it comes to 
>> distribution there might be multiple patent holders involved. See
>> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+hit+with+1.5+billion+patent+verdict/2100-1030_3-6161480.html. 
>> That's just FYI.
> 
> Wow, I always assumed such companies had legal access to MP3, and I was
> under the impression that it was really an enforced patent anyway.
> Definitely makes you think!

Precisely. Pity that people still ask Fedora Project all the time to 
distribute mp3 codecs without ever understanding the goals of the 
project or the legal and financial risks.

>> Wording is important. Anything that suggests users to encourage
>> proprietary solutions even if they are legal is tricky since it does not 
>> help our goals with Fedora. Usually these software don't support all the 
>> architectures that we support. So there are practical issues too.
> 
> How would you go about it? I'd probably bring up Theora tools, and
> explain that those are recommended, perhaps even pointing to ways they
> can transfer their current audio and video to Theora formats.
> 
> Then explaining that there are legal ways to access support for such
> codecs if they absolutely require it, maybe providing them with
> comparisons that show OGG is actually just as good, if not better.

That would work.

> Saying "this is illegal, so we don't do it" is not good enough in my
> opinion. Ill informed users will never make good choices.

Sometimes we can't take the legal risk we won't do it like pointing to 
third party repository that includes software that would infringe some 
patents. That's not up for debate.

Rahul