Josselin Mouette wrote: > > > 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 ? I'll ask again: is free speech illegal? > > 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. Next time you'll be telling us that runtime cpudetection is worse than distributing many binaries. > On the other side, what happens to your funky self-compiled mplayer when you > upgrade your CPU ? Why should anything special happen to my runtime-cpudetection enabled MPlayer? I'm using the same binary on my K6 and P1, and haven't seen anything abnormal so far. I can't say the same for your hyper-optimized system, though :P > Some of those works are GPL, aren't they ? Then you cannot randomly > forbid binary redistribution of derived works from them. So very true. _We_ don't forbid it. The GPL forbids it. See? > And mplayer is a derived work. Why? MPlayer was just a separate piece of code that, when put together with other pieces of code, miraculously compiled. Isn't that amazing? > Before mplayer even existed, avifile was playing most videos with good > quality and without having to compile it yourself at each release. Anyone who knew both players at that time, now turns away giggling :) BTW I was an avifile user (with its fscking Qt dependency, and unstability) at the time MPlayer was 0.10 First run of MPlayer was like a salvation.. (you can find the rest in the history books:))) > > 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. Here you go: if we behaved like Debian developers, we _wouldn't have opened_ the code, because its legality was "questionable". The code not being open, no users gained, no developers gained, development goes with the speed of an XFree86 compilation... You would be using Qt and avifile now. Rocks? ;P > > However, many people beg for its inclusion in Debian. Why? :) > Because having new software in Debian is good. (huh. Just deleted a sentence, evading my crucifiction:) Try changing the order of words in your sentence:))) > 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. Cool, at least we won't have to listen to the bugreports of binary package users. > If you don't mind the licensing and the legality of the software You came to this conlusion for us not making libmpeg2 Changelog? Congrats.. (see my other mail, anyway) > If you are fine with it, well, good for you. Really. Then why are you > here ? <clap-clap> In my very first mail I wrote _just this_, thanks for reading it... I'm here for Marillat. > > A user who wants a movie player to install with 3 clicks can go use windows. > If this is true (which I highly doubt) You don't have to believe me, but it is we who receive MPlayer users mails, not you. (unfortunately) > 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. I know our opinions differ here, but YES. It's the debian maintainer's job to package it, though - am I mistaken? > Then you are just a fucking elitist. Unfortunately not, I only want to be :) -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team
Attachment:
pgpjZEacqG_FV.pgp
Description: PGP signature