On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 05:44:51PM +0100, Gabucino wrote:
> > > Ehh ;)
> > > Would you like an >500k diff included in the libmpeg2/ dir? :)))
> > A changelog is not necessary a diff.
> Huh? If someone wants that, he can do 'cvs -z9 log | less'
> 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.)
The libmpeg2 library is licensed under the GPL, which says:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
Do you have a different license for access to this code which exempts
you from complying with the terms of the GPL, or are you simply ignoring
this part of the license?
To be fair, I have seen many other GPL projects handled similarly,
allowing a changelog to substitute for the GPL's "modified files must be
clearly marked" requirement. But hearing you say that you don't think
there's anything wrong with your current process, without explaining why
you think that is, does not instill confidence that you aren't
committing other, more serious license violations.
You also seem to be taking a mocking tone in reference to the DFSG.
This is not a question of the DFSG; this is a question of simple
*legality* of including the software in our distribution. We don't want
to sued by the owners of libmpeg2, or by anyone else, for distributing
software in violation of its license.
> > A user who can install a working xine package in 3 clicks won't care it runs
> > 0.001% slower, if it just works.
> A user who wants a movie player to install with 3 clicks can go use windows.
Thank you for making it clear that you have nothing in common with the
ideology of the Debian project and its developers. Those of us who were
giving you the benefit of the doubt, that all of this might be the
result of a miscommunication, can rest easy now.
> 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.
Linus is a nice guy, but he doesn't set policy for Debian -- certainly
not with regard to the legal risks we are or are not willing to take.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp0LZjZ2UIho.pgp
Description: PGP signature