codec support

[Darryl Moore]

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 11:05 -0400, Don Kelly wrote:
> On 8/3/06, Mathieu Charron <elwillow at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, that mean that if you have, or had, a windows licence you have the right
> > to download them and install them on a Linux machine?
> > Because I dual box from Ubuntu to Windows (2 PC + KVM), so I'm legal having
> > w32codecs on my linux PC?
> >
> 
> The README states: "running a validly licensed copy of the Client OS
> Software".  You could interpret dual-boot to fit into that definition.
>  BUT I suspect that an argument could be made that the intent was that
> the components must be installed on the running Windows instance and
> not on an alternative.  Both arguments seem valid to me.
> 
> I don't think that a machine that came with Windows preinstalled on
> which I later installed Ubuntu would qualify.
> 

You're quite possibly right.

On the other hand, the Competition Bureau could make some ruling that
this is anti-competitive in light of MS monopoly, and the fact that
these codecs are offered free for Windows AND Mac. I.E. they could
demand looser licencing restrictions.

However as Russell McOrmond discovered when he complained to them about
CSS, there needs to be a business which is being harmed before they will
consider any complaint. Perhaps creating our own distribution could be a
catalyst in this regard.