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 05-01-2008, 12:55 AM
"Patrick O'Callaghan"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 10:09 +0930, Tim wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >> Fedora cannot (as a US organisation) point an end user at a repository
> >> for free but US patent violating material. Merely providing a link is
> >> an offence and there is caselaw to prove that (the infamous 2600 DVD
> >> case).
>
> Patrick O'Callaghan:
> > Is this transitive? i.e. if RH points at an offshore site which contains
> > nothing but pointers to the sensitive material, is it still a violation?
> > If it's not, problem solved.
>
> Surely, even if that sort of thing was possible. As soon as they were
> informed (one way or another) that link in the middle was pointing to
> something that they're not allowed to do themselves, they'd have to
> cease referring to the referrer.

I would think it virtually certain that some link on some RH page points
at some other page where some link points at some other page where
(repeat as necessary) where there's a pointer to the forbidden fruit.
The question is how indirect does the reference have to be.

> > Of course I think like a mathematician, not like a lawyer.
>
> Methinks you forgot regression.

Huh?

poc


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 12:56 AM
Da Rock
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 07:16 -0700, Paul Shaffer wrote:
> I didn't specify at the outset of this discussion, but I have only two complaints regarding this issue and neither of them have to do with software patents, GPL, multimedia and related issues. Those things are insignificant from my perspective. What I hate to see is Redhat going down. Whether any of you believe it or not, Goliath comments aside, they have given themselves a black eye in the minds of many loyal supporters over the past couple of years. For me personally, the #2 issue is system stability. In their quest to be bleeding edge or whatever you want call it, I think we have sacrificed way too much in reliability and stability. I understand the devlopment schedule, testing methodology etc, as justifiable reasons therein. Initially I thought it was a great thing and eagerly awaited every release looking forward to the things I would be able to see and test for the first time. However, lately that has degeneratde into a situation I cannot
> accept as the seeming recklesss abandon with which thay've gone about it.
>
> That's really all there is to it. I can easily deal with these issues and that's why you don't see me posting here asking for help. But it has reached the threshold for me that I am not really enjoying it any more. I don't use my PCs for anything unusual or complex, just ordinary home office servers and workstations, with pretty much last generation plain vanila hardware. Despite that, I have lost count of the number of times and hours I've spent in the last two years fixing really dumb stuff like having the network just stop working after an update. Sure it's easy enough to run the previous kernel for a few days or a week until the fix appears, but that gets tiring after awhile when it becomes a continuous ongoing fear of loading new kernels. Sorry, but to me, things like that (and there are MANY more), and the frequency whith which they are ocurring just don't cut it for something being offered to the public, I don't care what justification for
> software philosophy you offer. Some of it just seems like sloppy work to me
>
> So I'll cross my fingers and take another step into F9. If things don't improve, I suppose I'll just sigh and continue being a disgruntled Fedora user. But fewer of my machines are running it these days, and that trend seems likely to continue.

If what you're doing is pretty ordinary, then try FreeBSD. It can be a
challenge to setup to do everything you want to do, but you can be
pretty damn sure that it will remain stable once you're set.

I also find it faster and far more stable as a system- you may never
have to reboot for a start! One server (I personally witnessed this) was
running for several years non stop and could have kept going if we
hadn't have needed to move it to a new location.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:35 AM
Da Rock
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:35 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:41 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > Which is a bizarre thing to be concerned about because the only thing they
> > > > could possibly do to diminish the value of the original copy would be to
> > > > improve it so much that no one would want the original. As a potential user
> > > > of that improved version, I think that restriction is a bad thing. And most
> > > > bizarre of all is the notion that I can't obtain my own copy of a GPL'd
> > > > library, and someone else's code under their own terms separately.
> > > >
> > > The hard work is done by the original author. So if I understand you
> > > correctly, its ok with you if i use your code, improve it, and
> > > relicense it so what you freely contributed is now going to cost you
> > > money. So your hard work now belongs to someone else.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think anyone is talking about modifying your code and
> > relicensing it. That would clearly be a derived work, and there's no
> > question you can impose conditions on its redistribution.
> >
> > You write a library. I write a program that calls routines in your
> > library. Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions
> > on my distribution of my own code. That's a fuzzy, gray area, but (to
> > mix a metaphor) it's just the tip of the iceberg of complexity.
> >
> > ChipCo creates a piece of specialized hardware and releases a
> > proprietary driver. I write code to interface your library and the
> > ChipCo driver. Can your license prevent me from distributing my code?
> > If so, you and I might have a reasonable disagreement about whether
> > that's a good thing. But you can't deny that some people who might
> > benefit from my code (and by extension, your code) are prevented from
> > doing so. You can only argue that some greater good is served by their
> > suffering. Note that I want to be generous with my code and release it
> > under an open-source license; I'm not trying to unfairly benefit from
> > your work.
> >
> > You write a library and distribute it under an open-source license. I
> > write a library and distribute it under a slightly different--but
> > incompatible--open-source license. Les writes a program that links to
> > both libraries. If your license can impose conditions on Les's
> > distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's
> > program are SOL. Note that nothing here violates the spirit of OSS.
> > Everyone involved wants to be generous. Nobody is trying to unfairly
> > benefit from anyone else's work. But due to a technicality, nobody can
> > benefit from Les's work at all! That seems like a shame, doesn't it?
> >
>
> Yes it does but what then is the answer?Everybody argues that A is
> right or B is wrong or c....you get the idea. What is the solution?
> Let's stop going over the same ground and come up with some kind of
> solution. The end user is ultimately the only one that matters, i
> think everyone can agree on that, if the end user cannot get their
> work done then everyone suffers, so what should we as end user's
> do?should i have to pay for a brand new office suite when nothing
> substantial except the companies desire to support it has changed?That
> is an example not a way to drag M$ into this, so please lets leave the
> M$ bashing where it belongs. this will of course create another debate
> but at least we will subtly change the content of the conversation.

I agree - a solution needs to be found. But then, this is what the heart
of this whole thread has been about: legalities of linking different
licenses. And Fedora and a minority of users has taken a stand on one
side of this issue. Will they condescend to a level where an agreement
can be reached?

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 01:50 AM
Da Rock
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 17:15 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> max bianco wrote:
>
> > Adobe Flash is something I can't for the life of me figure out why
> > anyone would use. You can't kill the adds like you can with gnash and
> > it leaves a gaping security hole in everything it touches.
> >
> Because it is the closest thing we have to a universal video format.
> Pure and simple, if I want to put out something like a "How to assemble"
> or a video of a meeting, I could do wmv for the MS folk, and ogg for the
> Linux folk, and {can't remember} for the Mac folk (I have a script for
> ffmpeg), or I can do flash and everyone can use it.
>
> If you want to communicate with others, and view their communication
> with you, flash is the format to use.
>
> If you never communicate with the outside world, it's optional.

I don't agree with that- flash is well overused on the web by web
developers too lazy to do a job the right way so that everyone can use
it. That said, if ogg is supposed to be OSS, then that would meant that
windows users could view it, and I would think that Mac users could too-
so there you have it: a better solution. Just requires a little more
thought.

I know I come across a little harsh on this issue, but there is rather
unrealistic view that everyone can view a flash file straight up. I'm
sorry but you're dead wrong. Their are so many reasons why a flash could
not be viewed- limitations on the adobe license for a platform,
restrictions placed on desktop use, etc. Sure, it can look fun, it may
be easy use for someone who is low on correct training and looking to
make a quick buck, but there are better, more accessible solutions out
there which should be used instead. This is even more important when you
wish to reach the widest audience.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:07 AM
David Boles
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Da Rock wrote:

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 13:35 -0400, max bianco wrote:

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs@clemson.edu> wrote:

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 10:41 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >


Which is a bizarre thing to be concerned about because the only thing they

> > could possibly do to diminish the value of the original copy would be to
> > improve it so much that no one would want the original. As a potential user
> > of that improved version, I think that restriction is a bad thing. And most
> > bizarre of all is the notion that I can't obtain my own copy of a GPL'd
> > library, and someone else's code under their own terms separately.
> >
> The hard work is done by the original author. So if I understand you
> correctly, its ok with you if i use your code, improve it, and
> relicense it so what you freely contributed is now going to cost you
> money. So your hard work now belongs to someone else.
>

I don't think anyone is talking about modifying your code and
relicensing it. That would clearly be a derived work, and there's no
question you can impose conditions on its redistribution.

You write a library. I write a program that calls routines in your
library. Now the question is whether your license can impose conditions
on my distribution of my own code. That's a fuzzy, gray area, but (to
mix a metaphor) it's just the tip of the iceberg of complexity.

ChipCo creates a piece of specialized hardware and releases a
proprietary driver. I write code to interface your library and the
ChipCo driver. Can your license prevent me from distributing my code?
If so, you and I might have a reasonable disagreement about whether
that's a good thing. But you can't deny that some people who might
benefit from my code (and by extension, your code) are prevented from
doing so. You can only argue that some greater good is served by their
suffering. Note that I want to be generous with my code and release it
under an open-source license; I'm not trying to unfairly benefit from
your work.

You write a library and distribute it under an open-source license. I
write a library and distribute it under a slightly different--but
incompatible--open-source license. Les writes a program that links to
both libraries. If your license can impose conditions on Les's
distribution of his program, then users who would get value from Les's
program are SOL. Note that nothing here violates the spirit of OSS.
Everyone involved wants to be generous. Nobody is trying to unfairly
benefit from anyone else's work. But due to a technicality, nobody can
benefit from Les's work at all! That seems like a shame, doesn't it?


Yes it does but what then is the answer?Everybody argues that A is
right or B is wrong or c....you get the idea. What is the solution?
Let's stop going over the same ground and come up with some kind of
solution. The end user is ultimately the only one that matters, i
think everyone can agree on that, if the end user cannot get their
work done then everyone suffers, so what should we as end user's
do?should i have to pay for a brand new office suite when nothing
substantial except the companies desire to support it has changed?That
is an example not a way to drag M$ into this, so please lets leave the
M$ bashing where it belongs. this will of course create another debate
but at least we will subtly change the content of the conversation.


I agree - a solution needs to be found. But then, this is what the heart
of this whole thread has been about: legalities of linking different
licenses. And Fedora and a minority of users has taken a stand on one
side of this issue. Will they condescend to a level where an agreement
can be reached?



I don't understand you comment. The question is asked and answered.

Asked. Will Fedora break the law and their principals?

Answered. No.

What part of *no* don't you understand?

--


David

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:13 AM
Tim
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 11:50 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> I don't agree with that- flash is well overused on the web by web
> developers too lazy to do a job the right way so that everyone can use
> it. That said, if ogg is supposed to be OSS, then that would meant
> that windows users could view it, and I would think that Mac users
> could too- so there you have it: a better solution. Just requires a
> little more thought.

Though that's putting the shoe on the other foot. Now, it's the hapless
Windows user, who typically would have no idea how to add ogg support to
their box, who's got to figure out how to view something.

One reason that you won't get widespread support for open systems, like
ogg, is that those who develop such things don't want to support digital
rights management (i.e. letting outsiders control what the user can and
cannot do), and content suppliers typically want to control what you can
do (e.g. they stream audio/video so that you can watch it, but you can't
save it - which makes dial-up viewing next to impossible). Content
suppliers will use something else that suits them, and damn the users.

Whilst there are restrictions on Flash, and hazards with using it, it
will have the largest user base, already, for being able to simply view
something non-static in the web browser.

I just had a very quick search around, and I couldn't see a way to add
ogg viewing to MSIE (e.g. theora). Sure, I can add things so that I can
play ogg vorbis audio files in a player, but not view embedded content.
And embedded content is what most suppliers want to use.

Theora would need quite a bit of improvement, too. All of the ogg
theora videos that I have seen have looked really crappy video quality.

--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:17 AM
Tim
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 11:35 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> But then, this is what the heart of this whole thread has been about:
> legalities of linking different licenses. And Fedora and a minority of
> users has taken a stand on one side of this issue. Will they
> condescend to a level where an agreement can be reached?

Sure. The consensus if you want to do something illegal, use something
else. There's nothing stopping you from doing so, and there's plenty of
"something elses" for you to use.

--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:39 AM
Da Rock
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 19:22 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 00:38 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Fedora cannot (as a US organisation) point an end user at a repository
> > for free but US patent violating material. Merely providing a link is
> > an
> > offence and there is caselaw to prove that (the infamous 2600 DVD
> > case).
>
> Is this transitive? i.e. if RH points at an offshore site which contains
> nothing but pointers to the sensitive material, is it still a violation?
> If it's not, problem solved. If it is, then in theory RH would need to
> perform a transitive closure on all the web sites it hosts to ensure
> there's no path from them to the good stuff (sorry, the bad stuff).
>
> Of course I think like a mathematician, not like a lawyer.

Actually, based on the preposition here by Redhat then even hosting this
list would cause illegalities to be linked to them as every time the
question comes up someone posts links and answers...

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:45 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Da Rock wrote:


Actually, based on the preposition here by Redhat then even hosting this
list would cause illegalities to be linked to them as every time the
question comes up someone posts links and answers...


User generated content in the lists aren't the same as official website
documentation. Refer the following for details.


http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.advisory-board/3288

Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 05-01-2008, 02:45 AM
Da Rock
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 11:43 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 11:50 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> > I don't agree with that- flash is well overused on the web by web
> > developers too lazy to do a job the right way so that everyone can use
> > it. That said, if ogg is supposed to be OSS, then that would meant
> > that windows users could view it, and I would think that Mac users
> > could too- so there you have it: a better solution. Just requires a
> > little more thought.
>
> Though that's putting the shoe on the other foot. Now, it's the hapless
> Windows user, who typically would have no idea how to add ogg support to
> their box, who's got to figure out how to view something.
>
> One reason that you won't get widespread support for open systems, like
> ogg, is that those who develop such things don't want to support digital
> rights management (i.e. letting outsiders control what the user can and
> cannot do), and content suppliers typically want to control what you can
> do (e.g. they stream audio/video so that you can watch it, but you can't
> save it - which makes dial-up viewing next to impossible). Content
> suppliers will use something else that suits them, and damn the users.
>
> Whilst there are restrictions on Flash, and hazards with using it, it
> will have the largest user base, already, for being able to simply view
> something non-static in the web browser.
>
> I just had a very quick search around, and I couldn't see a way to add
> ogg viewing to MSIE (e.g. theora). Sure, I can add things so that I can
> play ogg vorbis audio files in a player, but not view embedded content.
> And embedded content is what most suppliers want to use.
>
> Theora would need quite a bit of improvement, too. All of the ogg
> theora videos that I have seen have looked really crappy video quality.

Actually its quite simple to allow mediaplayer to use the ogg codec, and
a link would make it easy for them to install and use. As for static
content- they really need to just get over it. But failing that, then
why not stream? Come what may a user will always find a way to save it
if they really want to.

--
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 01:03 PM.

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