Re: could the "missing codec" redirection be more informative?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   oh, balls.  a page from fedoraproject.org:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OtherRepositories
> 
> *explicitly* refers readers to rpmfusion.org, for the following
> reason:
> 
> "There are a number of third-party software repositories for Fedora
> that provide software packages that Fedora excludes for various
> reasons. These software repositories are not officially affiliated or
> endorsed by the Fedora Project. Use them at your own discretion."
> 
> are you seriously suggesting that it would now be legally problematic
> to go here:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageKit_Items_Not_Found#Missing_Codec

Yes.  Other repositories can be mentioned, but only if particulars about 
their contents not be mentioned. (That was the guideline laid out by fedora 
legal).  Else, it risks contributory infringement.  IANAL, and all that.

-- Rex

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux