FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-28-2008, 12:00 AM
David Boles
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Bob Kinney wrote:



--- On Sun, 4/27/08, David Boles <dgboles@gmail.com> wrote:


From: David Boles <dgboles@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list@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

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 12:07 AM
Antonio Olivares
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

--- Bob Kinney <bc98kinney@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sun, 4/27/08, David Boles <dgboles@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: David Boles <dgboles@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
> > To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list@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.
>
>
> --bobcat

Many users will agree to that

BTW Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, *buntu do not include
mp3 playback from the very beginning, but they are
easy to add supposedly. The other distros that do
include the mp3 playback, have not been sued, or I do
not know of any that has. What is illegal about
including the code?

The codecs can be downloaded and installed, the
players can be compiled/or yummed in from the
third-party repos. Have any third-party repos been
sued?

On the main wiki page for Fedora:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/

Towards the very bottom there it says the following:
<quote>
Fedora is a trademark of Red Hat.
The Fedora Project is maintained and driven by the
community and sponsored by Red Hat.
This is a community-maintained site. Red Hat. is not
responsible for its content.
</quote>

The mp3 examples

Fedora's stance
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3?highlight=%28mp3%29

If Fedora were not sponsored by Red Hat, mp3 playback
would probably be included on Fedora and users did not
have to complain. If they included it by
mistake/choice at one point the line at the bottom
should save them from potential lawsuits

<quote>
This is a community-maintained site. Red Hat. is not
responsible for its content.
</quote>

There are the Forbiden Items as well
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

We should all know having run Fedora for a while. I
am just wondering why at one point it was said that
since Fedora is a community project different from Red
Hat and although it is supported by Red Hat, the
possible inclusion of the Forbiden Items could become
a reality. It might have been a dream, but oh well
many users are leaving Fedora because of it.

Here the Goliath is Red Hat according to some, but it
should be MS because Red Hat as many have stated they
go for servers and make their money off them by
providing support. The desktops come with M$
preinstalled and they are to this point the true
Goliath. The David's of the world, *buntus, Fedora,
PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint, ** put a linux here **, have to
unite together in order to put a stone on Goliath's
head so that the beast has to fall. It will be a very
hard battle and many refuse to unite. It is because
many are divided, that MS will not go down. Some say
apple computers will get more users, but the costs are
still high and users will have to look at other
options.

My $0.02.

Regards,

Antonio
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 12:14 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Antonio Olivares wrote:


BTW Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, *buntu do not include
mp3 playback from the very beginning, but they are
easy to add supposedly. The other distros that do
include the mp3 playback, have not been sued, or I do
not know of any that has. What is illegal about
including the code?


We cannot wait for being sued to prove it. Like Microsoft has learned
recently, that's a quite a lengthy and costly affair.


http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-6161760.html

There is no US based distribution that includes MP3 playback out of box.
Canonical which is the commercial/legal entity behind Ubuntu is
established (atleast technically) in Isle of Man which is a tax haven
and does not have the same laws nor do they operate in the same
environment or have the same goals.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 12:27 AM
Antonio Olivares
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> > BTW Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, *buntu do not
> include
> > mp3 playback from the very beginning, but they are
> > easy to add supposedly. The other distros that do
> > include the mp3 playback, have not been sued, or I
> do
> > not know of any that has. What is illegal about
> > including the code?
>
> We cannot wait for being sued to prove it. Like
> Microsoft has learned
> recently, that's a quite a lengthy and costly
> affair[1].
>
> http://www.news.com/2100-1027_3-6161760.html
>
> There is no US based distribution that includes MP3
> playback out of box.
> Canonical which is the commercial/legal entity
> behind Ubuntu is
> established (atleast technically) in Isle of Man
> which is a tax haven
> and does not have the same laws nor do they operate
> in the same
> environment or have the same goals.
Apparently there is one at least that does provide mp3
playback out of the box

http://www.linux.com/articles/57849?theme=print

Although you can pay for a copy of it or you can also
download it for free. I just hope that they do not
get sued.

M$ pays out any competitors and quiets many down
because "money talks and bullshit walks".

Is it "bad", or illegal if one person installs wine on
Fedora and then download the windows version of vlc to
play mp3's? This person is not using the third party
repos. But now he/she can play mp3's. Is there
anything illegal by doing that?

Can this person get sued?

Regards,

Antonio

[1] The U.S court system plays to the advantage of MS
because as others have pointed out, they can prolong
the case and the little guys will have a hard time
winning. The judges and attorneys will do as the ones
with $$ day to do.
>
> Rahul
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 12:38 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Antonio Olivares wrote:


http://www.linux.com/articles/57849?theme=print

Although you can pay for a copy of it or you can also
download it for free. I just hope that they do not
get sued.


Probably won't. It is a matter of how much money you lose in filing
charges vs how much you hope to gain in the end. Suing a single
individual with no commercial entity behind it is just not worth it.



Is it "bad", or illegal if one person installs wine on
Fedora and then download the windows version of vlc to
play mp3's? This person is not using the third party
repos. But now he/she can play mp3's. Is there
anything illegal by doing that?


I suspect you don't understand how software patents work. Software
patents don't cover merely implementation (that would be copyright) but
give a exclusive and monopoly right to the patent holder over the
application of the ideas itself.


http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/features/ip/

VLC in Windows is just the same as the Linux version from this
perspective. Neither of them come with any software patent license. If
they do, they won't be free in the first place.



Can this person get sued?


Can? Sure depending on whether he is a citizen of a country that
enforces software patents but individuals are very unlikely to get sued
for patent damages. Commercial entities are the usual target for the
reason I explained above.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 12:44 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Francis Earl wrote:
Yes, I understand that is why the large companies are involved and why
they want to protect their own interests at the expense of their users.
However, that is not why a lot of open source software is written, and
a lot that was originally written without such restrictions has
subsequently had the viral GPL applied.


Large companies are involved in open source because it is more cost
effective to provide your share of the total R&D rather than the entire
R&D.


And because the GPL provides the anti-competitive means to keep others
from improving the product in ways you might like better without them
being able to offer it too.



GPL is designed to EMPOWER users, to give the control BACK to the user.
You should read the GNU Manifesto some time.


Technically, users are permitted to do anything they want - the
restrictions apply only to redistribution. However, most people don't
want to write all of their own code or couldn't even if they tried, so
for all practical purposes, the GPL simply limits what you can get.


I'm speaking from a user's perspective, not a distributor making money
on support. I'd much rather not have any such restrictions prohibiting
others from improving the code under their own terms. I'd rather make
up my own mind about those terms. Tivo's OS-X, etc. are all good things
from a consumer perspective.


Use the livna repo if you do not care about such restrictions.


I do care about the legal issues and they aren't going to go away.


For what
it's worth, a Tivo is a Linux box.


And part of the reason for GPLv3 was to make such things more difficult.
The FSF isn't doing you any favors.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 01:00 AM
Antonio Olivares
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> > http://www.linux.com/articles/57849?theme=print
> >
> > Although you can pay for a copy of it or you can
> also
> > download it for free. I just hope that they do
> not
> > get sued.
>
> Probably won't. It is a matter of how much money you
> lose in filing
> charges vs how much you hope to gain in the end.
> Suing a single
> individual with no commercial entity behind it is
> just not worth it.
>
> > Is it "bad", or illegal if one person installs
> wine on
> > Fedora and then download the windows version of
> vlc to
> > play mp3's? This person is not using the third
> party
> > repos. But now he/she can play mp3's. Is there
> > anything illegal by doing that?
>
> I suspect you don't understand how software patents
> work. Software
> patents don't cover merely implementation (that
> would be copyright) but
> give a exclusive and monopoly right to the patent
> holder over the
> application of the ideas itself.
>
Who is the patent holder in this case?
I have two links on one of my pages

http://www20.brinkster.com/olivares/

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/

I understand up to a certain point. But apparently
there are too many patent owners and it will be hard
to keep up who has the upper hand in this issue.

Suppose a musician records a disc. He/she recorded
that disc with a record company the record company is
the one that holds the key to the success of the
company. If the artist wanted to put the music on the
net for free downloading, the record company would
refuse to abide by the artists intentions.

Who holds the patent to the disc, the creator, or the
company?
>
> http://www.redhat.com/magazine/007may05/features/ip/
>
> VLC in Windows is just the same as the Linux version
> from this
> perspective. Neither of them come with any software
> patent license. If
> they do, they won't be free in the first place.
>
But do you see my point, Take Windows XP on a computer
with a DVD drive. The machine cannot play DVD's even
though Microsoft has most things covered. To do so
you would need a copy of WinDVD/PowerDVD or other
software to view DVDs. Instead of doing this, I
encouraged students that wanted to view DVDs on a
computer lab to download VLC. They did and now they
can view DVDs and listen to ogg files where they could
not before using the default Window Media player.

Does not Microsoft have they lead here? They cannot
play a DVD by default?

Being in the US, which enforces the many laws that
might/might not make sense whenever it feels to or big
groups pressuring it to do so, is the strongest reason
why the Forbidden Items do not get included in Fedora.
You and others have pointed this out.

Commercial entities are the usual target for the
reason I explained above. Since Fedora is sponsored
by Red Hat, they cannot take a chance at getting sued.
That is why many things cannot be included. I agree
with many things, but I do not know why many people
say that many of these things are free.

Regards,

Antonio

>
>
> > Can this person get sued?
>
> Can? Sure depending on whether he is a citizen of a
> country that
> enforces software patents but individuals are very
> unlikely to get sued
> for patent damages. Commercial entities are the
> usual target for the
> reason I explained above.
>
> Rahul
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>



__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 01:07 AM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 19:44 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Francis Earl wrote:
> >> Yes, I understand that is why the large companies are involved and why
> >> they want to protect their own interests at the expense of their users.
> >> However, that is not why a lot of open source software is written, and
> >> a lot that was originally written without such restrictions has
> >> subsequently had the viral GPL applied.
> >
> > Large companies are involved in open source because it is more cost
> > effective to provide your share of the total R&D rather than the entire
> > R&D.
>
> And because the GPL provides the anti-competitive means to keep others
> from improving the product in ways you might like better without them
> being able to offer it too.

How is it anti-competitive to ensure in legal terms that everyone plays
nicely with each other? Please let me know.

> > GPL is designed to EMPOWER users, to give the control BACK to the user.
> > You should read the GNU Manifesto some time.
>
> Technically, users are permitted to do anything they want - the
> restrictions apply only to redistribution. However, most people don't
> want to write all of their own code or couldn't even if they tried, so
> for all practical purposes, the GPL simply limits what you can get.

They can give the software to their friend, instill it on as many
machines as they want - these are both things that effect EVERYONE. The
other rights ensure longevity of the code, and extensive peer review,
which betters the quality of the code... again, benefiting everyone.

> >> I'm speaking from a user's perspective, not a distributor making money
> >> on support. I'd much rather not have any such restrictions prohibiting
> >> others from improving the code under their own terms. I'd rather make
> >> up my own mind about those terms. Tivo's OS-X, etc. are all good things
> >> from a consumer perspective.
> >
> > Use the livna repo if you do not care about such restrictions.
>
> I do care about the legal issues and they aren't going to go away.

So what exactly are you arguing about? RedHat is attempting to change
the way the IT industry works to empower YOU, to give YOU control and
choice, and keep the corporations honest. Microsoft can do whatever they
want, if they do something bad, your only choices are to learn a new OS,
or live with it.

In the Linux space, you just switch distro.

> > For what
> > it's worth, a Tivo is a Linux box.
>
> And part of the reason for GPLv3 was to make such things more difficult.
> The FSF isn't doing you any favors.

They wanted to ensure a strategy Tivo partook in didn't happen again,
Tivo tried to steal code from people that didn't want it used that way.
It was a legal loophole so they can benefit solely, that isn't ok in the
FOSS world...

If I stole your credit cards, transferred the money to my account, and
gave the card back, you wouldn't feel too good about that, would you?

How about if I justified it saying "you can still use the card", would
that make it ok?

No, code is money.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 01:11 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Antonio Olivares


Who is the patent holder in this case?
I have two links on one of my pages

http://www20.brinkster.com/olivares/

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/

I understand up to a certain point. But apparently
there are too many patent owners and it will be hard
to keep up who has the upper hand in this issue.


Precisely. Multimedia is a patent mine field. For something like MP3,
there might be multiple patents that apply to different parts of the
technology held by different entities. Even if you decide to pay some of
the alleged patent holders, you might still be sued by another entity.
This is what happened in the Microsoft lawsuit. Refer to the earlier
link I gave you.



Suppose a musician records a disc. He/she recorded
that disc with a record company the record company is
the one that holds the key to the success of the
company. If the artist wanted to put the music on the
net for free downloading, the record company would
refuse to abide by the artists intentions.


Who holds the patent to the disc, the creator, or the
company?


Patents don't apply to any of these people. Only copyrights do. Patents
apply to the specific part of the encoders/decoders.



Does not Microsoft have they lead here? They cannot
play a DVD by default?


They don't have any advantage as far as DVD players are concerned.

I agree

with many things, but I do not know why many people
say that many of these things are free.


Some of the decoders are free and open source but paten encumbered. If
you are in a region that does not enforce software patents, the decoders
are indeed free and legal for you.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 01:15 AM
Antonio Olivares
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

> > And part of the reason for GPLv3 was to make such
> things more difficult.
> > The FSF isn't doing you any favors.
>
> They wanted to ensure a strategy Tivo partook in
> didn't happen again,
> Tivo tried to steal code from people that didn't
> want it used that way.
> It was a legal loophole so they can benefit solely,
> that isn't ok in the
> FOSS world...
>
> If I stole your credit cards, transferred the money
> to my account, and
> gave the card back, you wouldn't feel too good about
> that, would you?
>
> How about if I justified it saying "you can still
> use the card", would
> that make it ok?
>
> No, code is money.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>

Right. Code is precious. And it has to be protected
against the forces of evil. The credit card example
is awesome!

Regards,

Antonio


__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org