Linux Mint downloads (briefly) compromised

>> Whether appearances may be misleading is irrelevant. The same goes for licensing issues.

> Licensing isn't just a developer problem. If a proprietary software explicitly disallows redistribution, ignoring it isn't a realistic thing that you can expect distributions to do.

You're absolutely right, but missing the point. Most potential end users don't even realize there is a licensing issue, just as they don't realize that they may not be getting the best software update management solution (eg. missing some security updates). Perception is what matters. Ask anybody in marketing. One distribution includes Adobe flash and another doesn't. You developers think that's a licensing issue and as an underlying explanation you may be right. But do you honestly think that most potential users think "Ah ha, licensing!" at that point? No, they assume Linux Mint has a more complete solution, obviously having done whatever is required to achieve that, whereas you did not. Why should they assume that Linux Mint is somehow illegal? Honestly, that never even crossed my mind.

So, yes, licensing actually is "just a developer problem" in a context of this nature.