hello I had actually asked for help on debian-legal, in [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00173.html In our packaging of mplayer there is a file debian/README.Debian.2 that explain our study on the source of mplayer; and indeed in the e-mail [1] I clearly ask: > debian-legal: please read debian/README.Debian.2 in the source; > do you think that it is/isn't fit to go into Debian? but received only two comments ; the comment from Don Armstrong http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00618.html was about minor changes , and nobody posted a comment like "NO the code is not licensed OK, you cannot upload" so I will try to upload again a. On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 11:36:52PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > Hi A Mennucc1, > > > so we went into it and tried to clear all possible problems w.r.t. DFSG: > > we sent e-mails to any author of any piece of code that was suspicious, > > and at the end we did a packaging of mplayer 0.90 rc4 that we thought > > was ok > > I follow Debian Legal and I am aware that this issue was raised most > recently in May: > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200305/msg00618.html> > > Have you or Dariush Pietrzak addressed Don Armstrong's response? It would > be great to know that you have cleared the non-patent-related problems: yes: we studied the LICENSES and COPYRIGHT problem and not the PATENT problem: we read all the files in the source; for any file that was not clearly stating that the license was GPL or LGPL, we e-mailed developers to know where it came from; all of the above work is documented in debian/README.Debian.2 in the source > mplayer may or may not have patent problems, but they are not what is > stopping it from going into Debian. > > Please read the threads starting at [1] [2] for more information on why > mplayer is currently not in debian. > > You may have sent emails but did you get replies, and where have you > documented them? And did you let anyone know? Why doesn't there appear to > have been any followup to Debian legal? > I have read (most of) the above threads; I have e-mailed debian-legal (see [1]) > > I am still willing to mantain mplayer, but I will not do any work unless > > someone that has ftp-installer priviledge in Debian states that s/he > > will help (= examine it when we upload and tell if it can go into > > Debian, or why it cannot go) > > Well I'm also willing to download the mplayer source myself, extract it > and type fakeroot debian/rules binary. What you need to be willing to > address are the concerns that were raised. Please address Debian legal. I have already done , in [1] now would please someone in debian-legal address me :-) and read debian/ > > ps: I am not subscribed to the list > > I have also emailed you my response. If as a Debian developer you are > unwilling to subscribe perhaps you could check the archives: > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/thrd4.html> (thanks, I am using that) > Or point your news client to nntp://news.gmane.org. thanks, it is quite useful a. -- Andrea Mennucc "E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa!" (Tonino Carotone)
Attachment:
pgpujoxegtDX2.pgp
Description: PGP signature