docs/beginners-guide

Fork 10

generated from docs/docs-template

Clarify why codecs might not be included in Fedora #10

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-04-09 10:38:49 +00:00 by pg-tips · 5 comments

pg-tips commented

2026-04-09 10:38:49 +00:00

Member

The "video playing" part of the "Daily Driver" page says:

To enable closed source codecs, a quick online search will help you.

Not only closed-source actually - some open-source codecs are patent-encumbered.

The "video playing" part of the "Daily Driver" page says: > To enable closed source codecs, a quick online search will help you. Not only closed-source actually - some open-source codecs are patent-encumbered.

pg-tips referenced this issue

2026-04-09 10:39:43 +00:00

Clarify reasons why codecs are not included #11

theprogram commented

2026-04-09 11:02:16 +00:00

Member

We do address it under Nvidia section:

"If you are wondering "why don't they tell me exactly what to do with Nvidia and videos", it is due to legal reasons. Closed source software has different licencing conditions and different legal ramifications in different countries. This is one huge reason to go fully Open Source!"

I can see why you raise the issue though. I did contact Red Hat legal about this issue, and they have not yet responded.

We do address it under Nvidia section: "If you are wondering "why don't they tell me exactly what to do with Nvidia and videos", it is due to legal reasons. Closed source software has different licencing conditions and different legal ramifications in different countries. This is one huge reason to go fully Open Source!" I can see why you raise the issue though. I did contact Red Hat legal about this issue, and they have not yet responded.

pg-tips commented

2026-04-09 11:05:32 +00:00

Author

Member

Right, but the current wording suggests that only closed-source software has licensing conditions - and that is not quite true.

The point is that we could write a completely open-source implementation of a patented codec, and there would still be licensing restrictions preventing Fedora from shipping it.

Right, but the current wording suggests that **only** closed-source software has licensing conditions - and that is not quite true. The point is that we could write a completely open-source implementation of a patented codec, and there would still be licensing restrictions preventing Fedora from shipping it.

theprogram commented

2026-04-09 11:15:36 +00:00

Member

This is a contentious area, and one of the few issues that is more legal than technical.

One of the authors is in one of the few countries that takes these issues seriously, so we need to err on the side of caution.

Can you suggest a better wording or update for the passage?

This is a contentious area, and one of the few issues that is more legal than technical. One of the authors is in one of the few countries that takes these issues seriously, so we need to err on the side of caution. Can you suggest a better wording or update for the passage?

pg-tips commented

2026-04-09 11:17:43 +00:00

Author

Member

Can you suggest a better wording or update for the passage?

That's what I did in the linked PR, I thought :) Is there a problem with the wording I chose there?

> Can you suggest a better wording or update for the passage? That's what I did in the linked PR, I thought :) Is there a problem with the wording I chose there?

theprogram referenced this issue from a commit

2026-04-09 11:33:55 +00:00

Clarify reasons why codecs are not included (#11)

theprogram commented

2026-04-09 11:34:54 +00:00

Member

Checked again and now I see it and approved and merged it.

I was expecting something bigger :)

Checked again and now I see it and approved and merged it. I was expecting something bigger :)

👍 1 😆 1

theprogram closed this issue

2026-04-09 11:35:18 +00:00