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

Re: why mplayer not in Debian


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
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


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


Andrea Mennucc
 "E' un mondo difficile. Che vita intensa!" (Tonino Carotone)

Attachment: pgpujoxegtDX2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: