[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems

Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Well, until we were 100% GPL we only distributed the source - which
> > is in turn free speech. Thus I don't really see what are you pointing
> > at.
> The defacto forbiding people to distribute binaries at all whilst
> using GPLed code.[2]
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?_)
 - we being happy (people liked MPlayer and came and help developing new
 - users being happy AND not doing a criminal act at the same time (downloaded
   the sources, compiled and they got the /at that time/ the only reliably
   working movie player)

What if we provided binaries?
 - missing runtime CPU detection code would have caused SIGILLs everywhere
 - we would have commited a crime against GPL developers (because the
   binary just couldn't be GPL, you see)

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

See? Just try to look a bit further that "they fscking forbid distributing"...
These are the reasons why we were pissed of Marillat's packages, and his

> The open ignorance of other people's licenses, basically daring them
> to sue.[3]
We didn't ignore anyone's license.
The sources were there (and only that), free to be reviewed.

> In addition there aren't any indication in libmpeg2 and the other
> libraries included in mplayer as to what changes have been made to
> them, as required by the GPL's Terms and Conditions... section 2,
> subsection a:
Ehh ;)
Would you like an >500k diff included in the libmpeg2/ dir? :)))

> $ diff MPlayer-0.90rc1/libmpeg2 mpeg2dec-0.3.1/libmpeg2/|wc -l
>    5715
See? We won't provide diffs, as long as both sources are in close vicinity.
Also: our libmpeg2 is NOT 0.3.1! It's a modified 0.2.x .

The reasons it is modified:
 - libmpeg2 in itself couldn't fit to MPlayer's features/architecture
 - ask A'rpi, he knows better than me :) (but he _does_ have good reasons for
   doing things - hell, he wrote the first really working movie player..)

The reasons why we are still not using 0.3:
 - it unfortunately contains a built-in MPEG demuxer before the MPEG codec,
   and it's very hard to remove.. We (as everyone else) have our own MPEG
   decoder, so we'd need only the codec. We plan a merge though, later.
   But we won't include diffs :)

> [This isn't exactly fair, but I kind of doubt that there haven't been
> any changes to the libmpeg2 source... and more importantly, there are
> files normally distributed with mpeg2dec that are not included with
> Mplayer-0.90rc1.]
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
 - MPlayer's Debian maintainer could provide a diff.

> However, I'm not sure if there is anyone crazy enough to package it,
> wander through the morass of -legal that needs to be done,
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.

> If the mplayer developers and/or debian developers wish to prove me wrong, by
> all means, do so.

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: pgpPo2xeFooBZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: