When can we see the inclusion of Video Players for RedhatFedora?

[Phil Schaffner]

On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 11:52, Guy Fraser wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:15:40AM +0200, Martin Stricker wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>So what about moving to a place with more reasonable laws? This is
> >>becomming annoying - many other distros have video players on board.
> >>    
> >>
> >I would expect that to change. SuSE is now Novell owned so the moment
> >Novells legal team finish a patent audit there is bound to be fallout.
> >
> >If you want truely free video then help finish Theora.

Hadn't seen that.  Interesting, but seems to be low on momentum.

> >  
> >
> Legal Smegol. ;-)
> 
> Does any one remember the days, when RH used to provide a disk with 
> "Commercial and Demo Applications". When you installed the app, there 
> was a notice informing you that you had to get a license.

Yes.  There are two different concerns here.  One is with freely
available (or commercial demo-ware) non-OSS apps that Red Hat could
include if they decided to work it out with the owners, and could
philosophically justify it in the corporate culture (or more cynically
see a way to make a buck?).  The stickier issues are with fully OSS that
is either illegal or seriously questionable in the US or other markets
due to copyright/patent restrictions.  Thus livna, freshrpms, ...

> Why don't we switch from yum to apt, install synaptic and then have 
> a configuration option or preference option that allows people to 
> access "commercial or unsupported applications" and it enables non
> RH repositories with these other apps.

What's apt/yum got to do with the issues at hand?  You can configure any
repository you want with either tool, although some repositories support
only one or the other, while many support both.

> Synaptic is a great package manager, and it not only allows you to 
> update applications you have installed, but it also allows you to 
> install any application from the configured repositories.

Do kinda miss synaptic, but it can be resurrected easily if FC2 add-on
and mirror repositories are apt-enabled.

> As long as RH does not have any of the apps at issue on their site 
> and do not allow access to such software by default, I can't see 
> how making it easier for people to get the said software could be 
> a problem for RH. Maybe someone with legal knowledge could comment.

Can't claim any legal expertise, but people have been legally hassled
for even providing links to DeCSS sources, although you certainly would
be hard-pressed to guess that after a Google on the term.  The safe road
for Red Hat is to provide a solid software base (with plenty of nice
fully-OSS and legally unencumbered goodies included to play with) and
let users/customers add what they please/dare to run on it.  Seems like
a reasonable approach.