seth vidal wrote:

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:32 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:

I have one minor concern here. Currently, codeina gives users a pointer to a
location where they can get codecs from, in the case where they aren't
supported within the Fedora repositories. While pointing people to Fluendo to
buy codec packs isn't exactly the greatest feature to preserve, we at least
offer a solution to folks following a clean install. So far as I can tell,
this PK solution does nothing for the user if they haven't already configured
a 3rd-party repository where the necessary codec might be available. *I* know
where to find that stuff and make this solution work as expected, but a new
user might not, meaning the search would fail, and they'd think there's no way
to play back their WMV crapola, complain loudly, etc., so this would be
something of a regression from F9, IMO. Of course, if there's actually
something in there that says "hey, you need to set up a 3rd-party repo and/or
you can get codecs from Fluendo", then no problem.




Which is, in fact, the whole point.


Apparently not, based on Richard's reply.


Codeina meant that fedora was
endorsing and encouraging the software fluendo offered. That was the
problem, imo.


I agree that endorsing and encouraging non-free codec usage, particularly from
a 3rd-party charging money for them, is sub-optimal for a distro all about
Freedom. However, we got a big thumbs up when we started including Codeina, as
it makes life much easier for end-users, while also educating them a bit. If
we remove that, I think we're right back to everyone bitching about Fedora
being user-unfriendly wrt codecs.


--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 12:30 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:32 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> I have one minor concern here. Currently, codeina gives users a pointer to a
> >> location where they can get codecs from, in the case where they aren't
> >> supported within the Fedora repositories. While pointing people to Fluendo to
> >> buy codec packs isn't exactly the greatest feature to preserve, we at least
> >> offer a solution to folks following a clean install. So far as I can tell,
> >> this PK solution does nothing for the user if they haven't already configured
> >> a 3rd-party repository where the necessary codec might be available. *I* know
> >> where to find that stuff and make this solution work as expected, but a new
> >> user might not, meaning the search would fail, and they'd think there's no way
> >> to play back their WMV crapola, complain loudly, etc., so this would be
> >> something of a regression from F9, IMO. Of course, if there's actually
> >> something in there that says "hey, you need to set up a 3rd-party repo and/or
> >> you can get codecs from Fluendo", then no problem.
> >>
> >
> > Which is, in fact, the whole point.
>
> Apparently not, based on Richard's reply.

Richard doesn't set fedora policy afaik. Nor do I, to be clear.


> I agree that endorsing and encouraging non-free codec usage, particularly from
> a 3rd-party charging money for them, is sub-optimal for a distro all about
> Freedom. However, we got a big thumbs up when we started including Codeina, as
> it makes life much easier for end-users, while also educating them a bit. If
> we remove that, I think we're right back to everyone bitching about Fedora
> being user-unfriendly wrt codecs.

Which is the problem. I'd rather be free software-friendly, first.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Richard Hughes wrote:

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:32 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
"hey, you need to set up a 3rd-party repo and/or
you can get codecs from Fluendo", then no problem.


No, there's not, but that's a good idea. What about something like:

----

No plugins were found to play back this media type:

You may need to enable or set up a 3rd party software source to find
these plugins.

You can buy media plugins from "Fluendo Codec Store" but these will not
be supported by your vendor.

----

The Fluendo Codec Store link could be just disabled in gconf, or patched
out by free software distros.


I do feel something like this is unavoidable, lest we face the wrath of users
and reviewers complaining about us being uncaring about their need to use
non-Free codecs. Perhaps something a bit more wordy though, explaining *why*
these codecs aren't included in Fedora (a la Codeina).



--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 12:33 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:32 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >> "hey, you need to set up a 3rd-party repo and/or
> >> you can get codecs from Fluendo", then no problem.
> >
> > No, there's not, but that's a good idea. What about something like:
> >
> > ----
> >
> > No plugins were found to play back this media type:
> >
> > You may need to enable or set up a 3rd party software source to find
> > these plugins.
> >
> > You can buy media plugins from "Fluendo Codec Store" but these will not
> > be supported by your vendor.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > The Fluendo Codec Store link could be just disabled in gconf, or patched
> > out by free software distros.
>
> I do feel something like this is unavoidable, lest we face the wrath of users
> and reviewers complaining about us being uncaring about their need to use
> non-Free codecs. Perhaps something a bit more wordy though, explaining *why*
> these codecs aren't included in Fedora (a la Codeina).
>

I think, if we have upstream projects encouraging and/or pointing to
for-pay services in this manner we may have to evaluate them more
closely.

please note my sig

-sv

--
I only speak for me.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

seth vidal wrote:

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 12:30 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:

seth vidal wrote:

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 11:32 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:

I have one minor concern here. Currently, codeina gives users a pointer to a
location where they can get codecs from, in the case where they aren't
supported within the Fedora repositories. While pointing people to Fluendo to
buy codec packs isn't exactly the greatest feature to preserve, we at least
offer a solution to folks following a clean install. So far as I can tell,
this PK solution does nothing for the user if they haven't already configured
a 3rd-party repository where the necessary codec might be available. *I* know
where to find that stuff and make this solution work as expected, but a new
user might not, meaning the search would fail, and they'd think there's no way
to play back their WMV crapola, complain loudly, etc., so this would be
something of a regression from F9, IMO. Of course, if there's actually
something in there that says "hey, you need to set up a 3rd-party repo and/or
you can get codecs from Fluendo", then no problem.



Which is, in fact, the whole point.

Apparently not, based on Richard's reply.


Richard doesn't set fedora policy afaik. Nor do I, to be clear.


Oh, I know, just sayin' that nuking all refs to Fluendo wasn't an explicit
goal of Richard's.


Removing the Fluendo refs actually *would* be Richard setting policy, IMO.
Continuing to include them maintains current policy.


I agree that endorsing and encouraging non-free codec usage, particularly from
a 3rd-party charging money for them, is sub-optimal for a distro all about
Freedom. However, we got a big thumbs up when we started including Codeina, as
it makes life much easier for end-users, while also educating them a bit. If
we remove that, I think we're right back to everyone bitching about Fedora
being user-unfriendly wrt codecs.


Which is the problem. I'd rather be free software-friendly, first.


As suggested, by Josh Boyer on IRC, this is probably something for the Fedora
Advisory Board to discuss. I'm all for free, but I think free needs to be
balanced with the needs of users. I'm certainly not the one to set policy
either, just trying to be sure we're considering all the angles here.


--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@redhat.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 12:36 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > I do feel something like this is unavoidable, lest we face the wrath
> of users
> > and reviewers complaining about us being uncaring about their need
> to use
> > non-Free codecs. Perhaps something a bit more wordy though,
> explaining *why*
> > these codecs aren't included in Fedora (a la Codeina).
> >
>
> I think, if we have upstream projects encouraging and/or pointing to
> for-pay services in this manner we may have to evaluate them more
> closely.

:-)

I'm not going to, but _if_ there was a link to Fluendo upstream, it
would be a one line patch in a spec file to remove it for Fedora. Please
don't make this a storm in a teacup.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 12:32 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> Richard doesn't set fedora policy afaik. Nor do I, to be clear.

No, I don't -- but I want to make PK _upstream_ to be suitable for all
distros with all freedom policies.

I don't think Fedora should ever show links to Fluendo again, but a
distro like Ubuntu might want to.

Richard.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think Fedora should ever show links to Fluendo again, but a
> distro like Ubuntu might want to.

Or a distro like that, might prefer to point to Canonical's
storefront.....which has alternative pricing for Fluendo codecs.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta@gmail.com) said:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsient@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No, there's not, but that's a good idea. What about something like:
> > The Fluendo Codec Store link could be just disabled in gconf, or patched
> > out by free software distros.
>
> And other distros might have their own storefronts for codecs, with
> alternative pricing. You probably do not want to hardcode a specific
> vendor location as a preferred vendor in PackageKit itself.

Yeah, this seems like a policy decision, best left out of any tooling.

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list