Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

[David Boles]

Bob Kinney wrote:
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 4/27/08, David Boles <dgboles at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: David Boles <dgboles at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
>> To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list at redhat.com>
>> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 6:21 PM
>> Tim wrote:
>>> Tim:
>>>>> A big company taking the moral stand versus a
>> handful of users taking an
>>>>> opposite moral stand.  Guess which one wins?
>>> Francis Earl:
>>>> I don't see how setting up livna, or
>> complaining about the contents
>>>> therein not being in Fedora is a moral stand?
>> It's just lazy and/or
>>>> ignorant.
>>> Do I really need to spell it out?  In the red corner
>> we have a company
>>> that has taken a stand on what they will and won't
>> do.  In the blue
>>> corner we have a user that has taken a stand that if
>> the system doesn't
>>> do what they think it should do, to hell with them...
>>>
>>> Both sides are posturing about principles, but
>> he's no David, and
>>> Goliath isn't disturbed.
>>
>> The true difference here is that 'the company' can
>> be sued for doing things 
>> that are illegal. And they, 'the company', chose
>> not to do those things. And 
>> that they also have standards and principles that they
>> chose to follow. 
>> Clearly stated. Open to view. Often repeated.
>>
>> The user is unhappy about that and knows of other
>> distributions that don't 
>> care if they do things that are illegal and that don't
>> have standards and 
>> principles. The user, if he wishes to remain with Fedora,
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My impression is that the RedHat chose to remove the functionality because  there was no unencumbered license for the MP3 and other proprietary media
> codecs, which could put them at *risk* for legal action or ridiculous 
> demands.  This seems like a wise business move on their part.
> 
> But I don't think that from this decision, one should conclude that the
> other distros are doing anything illegal. 


Microsoft *pays* a fee to provide the codecs to play mps3. Why? Because you 
have to *pay* for the software. You (users) pay for Microsoft Windows.

The distributions that provide these codecs, and all, also reside in countries 
where this is illegal. But third world countries chose to not enforce the 
laws. Hence they exist.

Illegal to do but not worth the effort (money/benefit) to bother with at this 
time. Music *used* to be that way. As did Napster. As did bittorent pirated 
movies.

If a man provides you an apple, that is not his to give away (stolen), and you 
take it? Look up 'receiving stolen property'. I'm not an attorney but that 
sounds about right for this.

-- 


   David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080427/68a67ccc/attachment-0001.sig>