On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:11:19PM -0300, salsaman wrote:
Please answer the question. I have been personally assured by
representatives of the mplayer developers that the ffmpeg code contains *no
patented code*.
Are these mplayer developers legal experts in patent law?
I spent over two years fighting to convince the debian
developers that this was true, until they finally accepted it.
Again, Debian doesn't have the same level of exposure as a distribution
with a corporate backer in the US -- i.e. Red Hat. Red Hat legal has
already made a call on this. They would have to clear any change in stance
with respect to ffmpeg and the like.
I am very tired of this discussion, and I am not prepared to go
through it
all again with the fedora legal dept.
Please just point me to just one registered patent that the core of ffmpeg
is known to violate.
Otherwise you are just spreading FUD.
If you're not willing to talk to someone with legal expertise about a
legal matter, then you're not going to get anywhere here. Sorry.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
<berrange(a)redhat.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 11:41:21AM -0300, salsaman wrote:
> > Please can you give an example of a patent which is violated in the
> *core*
> > of ffmpeg.
>
> This is the wrong place to raise legal questions wrt Fedora packaging, or
> potential new packages for Fedora. They should be directed to Fedora Legal
> team
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal
>
> "If you have any legal questions that can be discussed in public,
> post to fedora-legal-list . If you have any private legal questions
> send a mail to legal AT fedoraproject.org"
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod(a)redhat.com