Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> But that's the only way how we can legally point people to the "solution".
> We can't show the PackageKit window saying - now enable the repo we
> shouldn't talk about :D and say install gstreamer-plugins-ugly. In that
> case we can just ship it in our own repos :) On the o
I gave up a long time ago on using Linux as my primary desktop: I found my
self spending too much time helping the computer to work correctly than
having the computer helping me to work better.
I think the Fedora Project is about advanced Open Source mostly (but not
only) for server side, task aut
On Mar 21, 2012 2:30 AM, "Fedora Video" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
>>
>> Note that Debian does include a decoder by default for both MP3 and
>> H.264 but they can only do so because they are a non-profit and the
>> worst case scenario is a injunction until
- Original Message -
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > The only thing we can do here is to make it easier for people to
> > get these not nice codecs if they demand the support. Maybe in the
> > same way as with Fluendo MP3 long time ago? If you want it, take
> > the risks on you and pay the lic
On Mar 21, 2012 12:47 AM, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
> > What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
>
> It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
Which doesn't provide that much protection as a couple of online poker
companies recently disc
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> The only thing we can do here is to make it easier for people to
> get these not nice codecs if they demand the support. Maybe in the
> same way as with Fluendo MP3 long time ago? If you want it, take
> the risks on you and pay the licence fees...
As far as I know, Fluendo
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 09:55 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 21.3.2012 03:41, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Firefox will take advantage of a system h264 codec where one is
> > available. In the Fedora system, one will not be available.
>
> Fedora as shipped from get.fedoraproject.org won't contain H.264
On 21.3.2012 03:41, Adam Williamson wrote:
Firefox will take advantage of a system h264 codec where one is
available. In the Fedora system, one will not be available.
Fedora as shipped from get.fedoraproject.org won't contain H.264 codec.
Which doesn't mean that my computer won't be able to pl
On 20.3.2012 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Even YouTube has adopted WebM.
What the original author ignored to include was link to
http://brendaneich.com/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ which
explains the position of MoFo. What he completely missed is bug
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_
- Original Message -
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:29 -0400, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> > In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264
> > because it will be part of Firefox.
>
> No, it won't. You persist in misunderstanding this, though it has
> been
> explained to you. Fir
Meanwhile, my Fedora post-installation instructions are quite popular on the
Internet:
http://avi.alkalay.net/2007/06/fedora-post-installation-configurations.html
It is link #3 on a "fedora h.264" Google search and I use to keep it updated.
On 20/03/2012, at 23:11, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> O
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> [...]
> In the US instead patents have their root in a specific constitutional
> provision that says that this kind of monopoly can only be granted if it
> promotes innovation, this means there is no specific ban on software
> patents but given
On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote:
> In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264 because it
> will be part of Firefox.
Actually no. You don't understand the situation. Firefox does not
include H.264 at all. Firefox will play H.264 if the underlying
platform includ
On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote:
> In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264 because it
> will be part of Firefox.
Actually no. You don't understand the situation. Firefox does not
include H.264 at all. Firefox will play H.264 if the underlying
platform includ
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:29 -0400, Fedora Video wrote:
> In any case. This argument is moot. Fedora will distribute H.264
> because it will be part of Firefox.
No, it won't. You persist in misunderstanding this, though it has been
explained to you. Firefox will take advantage of a system h264 cod
On 03/21/2012 07:59 AM, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> The document is quite clear that Debian will not distribute software which
> only they can distribute or which can only be distributed
> non-commercially.
That may be the policy but the difference is that Debian is free to
interpret decoding as non
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Fedora Video wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> Note that Debian does include a decoder by default for both MP3 and
>> H.264 but they can only do so because they are a non-profit and the
>> worst case scenario is a injunction u
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Note that Debian does include a decoder by default for both MP3 and
> H.264 but they can only do so because they are a non-profit and the
> worst case scenario is a injunction until they remove the infringing
> parts so realistically noone
On 03/21/2012 06:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 01:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
>>> What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
>>
>> It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
>
> Regardless, as far as I know, Ubun
On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> In the US instead patents have their root in a specific constitutional
> provision that says that this kind of monopoly can only be granted if it
> promotes innovation, this means there is no specific ban on software
> patents but given they argu
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 01:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
> > What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
>
> It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
Regardless, as far as I know, Ubuntu does not ship h.264 encoding or
decoding support in
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:36 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
[lots elided]
> I was asked to reconsider my "invention" under another light: I was
> using captors to the external world. My prediction had an impact on a
> hardware product. In fact, every software patent you can think of can
> be
> reco
On 20/03/12 02:23 PM, Fedora Video wrote:
Why is Mozilla doing this? It is clear enough: Non-support of H.264
is making them irrelevant. They've gone from the #1 browser to the #4
directly as a result of not adopting H.264. H.264 is the only video
that is good enough for the web and the al
Fedora Video gmail.com> writes:
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own. They
have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously this means
H.264 in Fedora. With Firefo
Avi אבי Alkalay אלקלעי wrote:
> What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
It's based on the Isle of Man, not in the USA.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I actually support this idea.
What are the legal tools that Ubuntu uses so it can ship H.264 ?
Em terça-feira, 20 de março de 2012, Fedora Video
escreveu:
>
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will
be doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 22:48 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:27:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Patent-encumbered codecs are evil and it is time to embrace
> > Free codecs.
>
> Actually, government-granted monopolies are the problem. The codecs
> and software run
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:27:28PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Patent-encumbered codecs are evil and it is time to embrace
> Free codecs.
Actually, government-granted monopolies are the problem. The codecs
and software run just fine, over here in a free(-er) country.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones,
Fedora Video wrote:
> It is time for Fedora to stop promoting low quality, proprietary, and
> unlicensed video like WebM and Theora and adopt the industry standard
> x264. Our political preferences are worthless if Fedora is irrelevant.
> It is time to regain relevance!
Fedora will never ship pa
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 17:23 -0400, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They
> will be doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding
> their own. They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported
> too, so obviously this mea
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Fedora Video wrote:
>
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
> doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own.
> They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously
> this mean
Fedora Video (fedoravi...@gmail.com) said:
> As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
> doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own.
> They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously
> this means H.264 in Fe
As everyone probably knows, Mozilla has chosen to adopt H.264. They will be
doing this by finally utilizing OS codecs instead of embedding their own.
They have been quite clear that Linux would be supported too, so obviously
this means H.264 in Fedora. With Firefox's adoption there will be no web
b
33 matches
Mail list logo
