Le dim 26/01/2003 à 08:36, Gabucino a écrit : > Okay it seems we must talk about this old topic again - be it. > You must see that this was the ONLY way to > - staying legal (that bunch of sources was legal because each "libs" were > distinctable, but _what license would you have given to the binary?_) This is not legal, at least when there the software includes some GPL code. > What if we provided binaries? > - missing runtime CPU detection code would have caused SIGILLs everywhere That doesn't prevent the binaries from working, using several packages with different cpu optimisations. Many packages in Debian already work this way. > - we would have commited a crime against GPL developers (because the > binary just couldn't be GPL, you see) You cannot distinguish binary and source redistribution this way. A derived work is still a derived work when you only provide the source. > What if we crippled the non-GPL code (Debian-style approach......) > - we wouldn't have been #1 > - people wouldn't have a working movie player EVEN NOW Wrong. There have been several movie players around, which are much less painful to install and which comply with the DFSG - and they are included in the main Debian distribution. And even with all its optimize-everything-or-die crap, mplayer doesn't perform better. > We didn't ignore anyone's license. > The sources were there (and only that), free to be reviewed. Read the licenses. Providing the source is not the only requirement for some of them. > Ehh ;) > Would you like an >500k diff included in the libmpeg2/ dir? :))) A changelog is not necessary a diff. > Well I highly doubt that every program in Debian (that uses modified libs) > includes diffs.. :) But: > - if this stops you from including MPlayer in Debian, it's better that way With all that willingness from upstream, this will indeed make things difficult. But if you want to be #1 (as your goal seems to be world domination), you should consider doing the necessary steps to make your software available in the binary GNU/Linux distributions. A user who can install a working xine package in 3 clicks won't care it runs 0.001% slower, if it just works. > Well since xine is already in debian, I don't see any reason why MPlayer > shouldn't be. (xine is also using libavcodec/ffmpeg [the core of all media > activity on unix AND non-x86...], which is the thing with the most questionable > legality.. But if you cut it, neither movie player will be able to play > anything :))) So live with it. The Debian xine package doesn't use libavcodec (which is indeed illegal in some countries AFAIK). > > If the mplayer developers and/or debian developers wish to prove me wrong, by > > all means, do so. > Success? You have indeed proven that someone wanting to package mplayer will have a hard time dealing with upstream. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature