Don Armstrong wrote: > > we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael > > Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue > > himself for his own code. > How can Debian be sure that that's the case? What do you need? A hand-written permission from Walken, photocopied 65535 times, and one piece sent to each goverment of the world for signature? I don't care if you don't believe me. Go ask Walken (M. Lespinasse) then.. > Debian (correctly) avoids areas of questionable legality like the plauge. Uh-huh.. See below. > How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught? What "issue"? Do you disregard every mail? Convenient. > Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below? > Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely > under the GPL? Heh. If MPlayer isn't GPL because one of its video output driver (vesa) depends on lrmi, then what will happen to svgalib? Yes, Debian's svgalib also contains a VESA driver, and it uses LRMI for that. svgalib is included in Debian, however it isn't GPL. I wonder... Please don't stand further against me with your transparent ideas, or in the end everything will be stripped from Debian :) > If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which > it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which > major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against > xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached. And who will file that? :) Nobody is mazochist here except you :) > It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work. Only if you want it to be that way. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team "not sure how we will proceed here - xine's potential in the video processing field is imho so great that i certainly don't want to miss the chance to work into that direction." - Guenter, xine developer
Attachment:
pgpsLq1qrxdPM.pgp
Description: PGP signature