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

Re: why mplayer not in Debian



On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:45:29AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, A Mennucc1 wrote:
....
> 
> Junichi Uekawa asked for the contents of README.Debian.2 to go in
> debian/copyright, where it belongs.

> I asked about the mpeg2dec issue, as it wasn't included in the list of
> files with problems in README.Debian.2. 

(yes I do remember, and thanks for caring)
 
> Neither of us received a response.

well....  I had no reply !  :-) 

that is, I do (easily) agree with your two comments 

actually:  the issue of J.U. is more about packaging than legal;

on the issue about mpeg2dec... from
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200301/msg00231.html
I understood (incorrectly?) that it was not a big problem..
indeed the above message ends by 
"Obviously, if -legal feels that's superfluous, so be it."
 
> You also probably don't want to modify the copyright statements in the
> codebase itself. Let upstream deal with that, and just clarify the
> license in the copyright file.

ok

so: the only two answers  (thank again) were not speaking of
big license problems

now is the big question: do you think  that 
our (revised) source code can go in mplayer
(but for above changes)?

(I call it "revised" source code since we have deleted some files
from the upstream  tarball )

a.


(ps: last year I spent days reading each and any source file,
 sending e-mails to authors and googl-ing around to be certain of
 the origin and then of the copyright and the license!
 I would really love to know how many packages have been
 scrutinized so deeply for license problems as we did for mplayer! )

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

Attachment: pgptVJsPCshI6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: