[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

Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > 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.

> 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).

> I think you are using Gentoo on your own system just to be proud of its
> bleeding-edge state,
A'rpi? Not at all :) He's using Slackware.

> 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 :)
Get real: this "Debian STABLE+legal" policy _does_ _not_ _allow_ _a_ _usable_
_media_ _player_ to enter into Debian. Neither xine, nor MPlayer.

> > the strange thing is that they are legal in xine (and avifile and others)
> > but illegal in mplayer. so wonder why i'm disappointed by debian rules?
> > even if god debian-legal it's illegal, i'm interested in what' sthe
> > difference between mplayer and others, why are you discriminative to us?
> > i sugegst you removing all codecs and demuxers and everything related to
> > characters MPEG from any media player of debian. then it's fair...
> 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.

> Oh, I already see you screaming "but we want the most perferct software
> for version 1.0".
Again, what are you talking about?

> 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?

> > 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

> 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$.

> > even worse: they start the packaging procedure with the heavy usage of
> > the 'rm' command to strip down things they think illegal...
> 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.)

> I would include a crippled package into Debian, with a Debconf (that is
> the setup thingie) message telling the user about the legality
> situation. I wonder why you try to fight a such solution.
I think you have a hardware DVD player.. You simply don't know how important
the parts that you would cripple are!

> 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__!

> > (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..

(ask A'rpi about the distro's name, he brought up the topic, I don't know
if he'd want me to disclose its name. Don't fear: it's a well-known, official

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: pgpYrGKIuavG9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: