Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
#include <hallo.h>
* Gabucino [Mon, Jan 27 2003, 11:56:14AM]:
> > > so the users have to download the missing half from the net, breaking the
> > > law. debian's law.
> > We do not forbid anyone the downloads from the net.
> Nor do you provide uncrippled media player software.
If some upstream author distends the line between legal and illegal
code, there is no other way.
> > Hahaha. Two-three years ago. And in that time, there were faster
> > alternatives for common used systems, Ogle, iirc.
> Ogle is only good for one thing: DVD menus (but it's real good in it).
The fact is, even on a relative old multimedia system (say, Athlon-500
with TNT2), you can use both Xine and Mplayer for MPEG2/DivX videos with
XVideo, and you cannot use either of them without XVideo. You can be
keen on your maximum acceleration for aalib and SVGAlib output features
as long as you want, there are not many people using them.
> > Debian STABLE serves users that want quality software, that installs without
> > problems and runs acceptably.
> So crippling libavcodec, AC3 and ASF out of MPlayer would make it run
> acceptably? Cool :)
Come on, be honest, do you need AC3 and ASF support for mostly used
formats nowadays?
> Get real: this "Debian STABLE+legal" policy _does_ _not_ _allow_ _a_ _usable_
> _media_ _player_ to enter into Debian. Neither xine, nor MPlayer.
Put in in all caps if you want - the definition of "usable" remains
a moving target, see above. And the Xine case will be discussed.
> > Wrong. If someone sues you, you just take the problematic software from
> > the net and then you can find a sane solution with the lawyers. But we
> > cannot. What should our parners and CD sellers do? Burn all printed
> > media to ashes? And SuSE cannot (though, they are willing to risk more,
> > see KDE1 case), for example. Please open your eyes. Bleeding edge
> > software may promise you better software quality, but it does not
> > allways. You do not separate development and frozen branches, so there
> > is allways risk when using MPlayer.
> Sorry for quoting this much, but you read _nothing_ of Arpi's paragraph
> below. Nor did you answer any questions. Instead of answering why
> libavcodec in xine is _legal_, and why libavcodec in MPlayer is _illegal_,
> you talk about bleeding edge software being bad.
> Please answer the questions.
You miss the point, more and more. The only thing you want to see is
that Xine made it into official Debian distro in unmodified form, and
you don't. Well, the reason is simple - it was free to be distributed in
binary form, there were no troublemakers like you, telling everybody to
compile from source or die. If Xine's inclusion brings legal problems,
it will be removed again.
> > or you admit officially that Mplayer is unstable development software and
> > should not be packaged by anyone.
> So how does this come to legality, xine, and libavcodec?
Stop talking about Xine. Just release our mind and talk about _your_
problems and not only about problems of others.
> > > he makes usable, working packages. i expected teh same from debian but they
> > So what, and are his packages in the official Redhat distribution?
> Did you really expect RedHat to do that after it removed even its MP3 players?
> Debian is just a little bit better than that, but is continuously getting
> worse..
Please think about your own position and what you expect others to do.
It seems that you did not read anything from my statement above. Again:
you can risk some legality problems if you are are a small, single
project, without media distribution, without distribution in binary
form, without any responsibilities. Situation is MUCH DIFFERENT for
everybody else. There is no "better" or "worse" when dealing with
legality issues. It is either legal, or illegal, sometimes you can
afford a lawyer that can estimate the danger, but it is then still _risk_.
> > If that is the truth, blame Marillat but in private mails.
> So he can deny receiving them, nice.. Is that the Debian attitude? It's
> very surprising how desperately you all try to cover his lies. Smells like M$.
Again: READ MY MAIL. There is no Debian attitude unless it became a
consens and Project Leader has spoken to you.
> > Illegal? You cannot prove that they are legal, so why should they not be
> > illegal?
> You read 0 of my mail (Subj: "Just the usual rant...")
> Since when does debian-legal know better than the code's authors..?
> (answer in THAT thread, not here.. if you answer at all.)
Oh, come, "my-brother-got-more-sweetmeats-than-me". As said, we will
deal with this issue.
> > See above. You can meet such decissions for one single software project,
> > not distributed on hard media. For software systems, the situation is
> > different. Or why don't you complain about others not including Acrobad
> > Reader in their distros? They have to deal with the same shit, braindead
> > software licenses. And your case is not much better.
> We are NOT talking about licenses! We are talking about if you are willing
> to (for example) pay royalty to the MPEG Group for using an MPEG4 decoder!
> And MPlayer is GPL, pronto (except lrmi). If it is not, __come with proof__!
Huch? Do you expect the GPL to protect you from law suits because of
patents?
> > > (i know some shipping even libdvdcss) and then wait for reactions.
> > > _nothing_ was removed due to legal answer up to this moment.
> > Haha. Show me that distribution. Someone shipping on CD media and not
> > fetching Mplayer stuff from the net during the installation.
> Do you really think we are spreading FUD, and/or lying? Pity..
Hehe, I expected this. No answer but an answer by question.
F'up to me, enough of this on debian-devel.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Sicherheitshinweis:
Transporthinweis: Vorsicht beim Heben! Die Produktmasse und damit
das Gewicht hängen von der Relativgeschwindigkeit des Handhabenden ab.
Reply to: