On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> 
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:41 AM, Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/30/2018 01:07 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>>>>> someone asked in ask site [1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can Fedora consider allowing the package "libmpeg2" into the Fedora
>>>>>> family for the next release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Patent situations are rarely as simple as they appear to be, but we are
>>>>> investigating what we can do here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any updates to the situation? The date has since passed, and even
>>>> MPEG-LA has acknowledged MPEG-2's new patent-free situation[1].
>>>>
>>>> It'd be nice to have the ability to create DVDs within Fedora itself.
>>>>
>>>> [1]: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/M2/Pages/PatentList.aspx
>>>
>>> I am confident Fedora Legal will announce anything on this topic as
>>> soon as they possibly can.  Asking about it 6 days after that patent
>>> expired is both unrealistic and unhelpful.  Legal matters are very
>>> complicated and take time.
>>>
>>
>> I am aware of this. I elected to send the email because of three things:
>>
>> 1. Tom's response was on Feb 1, and it is now Feb 19 (18 days since his 
>> reply).
>> 2. MPEG-LA made a change on their website about the patent situation.
>> 3. It was nearly a week after the expiration.
>>
>> I felt it was justified to reply and inquire as well as present the
>> new information.
>>
>> I do not appreciate being chastised as if I'm being a troll.
>
> That was not the intention, and I apologize if that is how you took
> it.  While you might view this as new information and helpful, there
> are a few things to keep in mind:
>
> 1. mpeg has been an often discussed and highly watched space for
> years.  The information you provided is almost assuredly already known
> by the people involved.
> 2. Expecting any kind of response on any kind of timeline based on
> "new" information is overly optimistic.  As I said before, these
> things take time.
> 3. Legal matters tend to not be as transparent as the rest of our
> community activities due to some of the complexity involved and not
> wanting any sort of statement to be construed as legal advice.
>

This is all fair, but I have learned that it's better to not make such
assumptions. Unless I get an affirmation about something (or I've seen
it mentioned before, which it's entirely possible I've missed that,
since this list is mixed in with all the different threads on Fedora
things in my email...), I'm going to assume otherwise.

> So the information you pointed out might be useful to others and I
> thank you for providing it.  I would simply ask that you provide it as
> informational though, because repeatedly questioning on when you can
> get an answer, irrespective of the time between your questions, isn't
> likely to accelerate the process.
>

I didn't ask this before? This is the first time I've inquired in this
topic. The last time I posted a question on this ML was last year on
S3TC/DXTN...


-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to