Le dim 26/01/2003 à 17:44, Gabucino a écrit : > > This is not legal, at least when there the software includes some GPL > > code. > So free speech is not legal? Do you know what "copyright" means ? > > That doesn't prevent the binaries from working, using several packages > > with different cpu optimisations. Many packages in Debian already work > > this way. > We call that method "hack". Sorry ? This everything but a hack. This solution has worked for a long time, in packages *far more complicated* than mplayer and its selection of funky GCC flags. Have a look at ATLAS and its automated adaptation to the multiple cache sizes of the CPU, for example. For libraries, the system is even guaranteed not to fail, having fallbacks to non-optimized versions. On the other side, what happens to your funky self-compiled mplayer when you upgrade your CPU ? SIGILL's ? THAT is a hack. > "Derived work"? We are not talking about using GPL code in non-GPL software, > but exactly its opposite. We had a lot of miscellaneous licensed code mixed > up whose owners might have been mad if our software has just been "globally" > GPL. Some of those works are GPL, aren't they ? Then you cannot randomly forbid binary redistribution of derived works from them. And mplayer is a derived work. > No, true. I am not talking about the present. xine was (is?:) just a buggy > piece of hunk that threw sig11s every minute, when MPlayer was the stablest > movie player. Before mplayer even existed, avifile was playing most videos with good quality and without having to compile it yourself at each release. > The stuff I meant: half of the libavcodec and MPlayer developers are the same. > They evolved together. If their developers behaved like debian developers do > (no offense), we'd still be playing Indeo5 AVIs. Please explain. Go on. If you want to insult all people reading this list, do it more clearly. > > And even with all its optimize-everything-or-die crap, mplayer doesn't > > perform better. > However, many people beg for its inclusion in Debian. Why? :) Because having new software in Debian is good. Mplayer has unique features some people want to see in Debian, but if the legal status is still unclear, it just won't be done. Full stop. > What reason would be sufficient to duplicate the cvslog? Don't you want > interlaced MPEG4 encoding more? (oh, DFSG... Well you can't watch movies with > that, can you.) If you don't mind the licensing and the legality of the software you are using (which is plausible as you already don't care of that of the software you are hacking), you should consider playing with your w4R3Z version of Microsoft Windows. > In the last two years neither of us felt the instant urge to get MPlayer into > distros. And taking a look at freshmeat.net/stats and our download stats tells > us we are doing the right thing :) If you are fine with it, well, good for you. Really. Then why are you here ? > A user who wants a movie player to install with 3 clicks can go use windows. If this is true (which I highly doubt), why don't you use it ? Oh, yeah, you must think people wanting to use mplayer should make the effort of building it themselves, being rewarded of their efforts by having a working video player. Then you are just a fucking elitist. > It's just when people come up with such ideas as 100% legal, angel-white > distributions, that cut liba52, libavcodec, libmp3lame - and just can't > understand why it is Bad. > > Just as Linus said on dri-devel, it would be better to go and _include_ things > with unclear legality (S3TC), and see if it matters to anyone, than go and > whine in the corner. As we would say in France : and then, the marmot puts the chocolate in the aluminium foil. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature