On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:50:00AM -0700, William Ballard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:21:40AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004, Carlos Laviola wrote: > > > As mentioned before in the thread, mplayer can't be included in Debian > > > because large portions of code it relies upon, even if they're > > > released under a free license(http://ffmpeg.sf.net) are based on, or > > > similar to, patented algorithms, which makes it a problem for us. It's > > > the same thing that keeps LAME out of Debian, as far as I know. > > A patent is not the end of the world; Debian only refrains from > > distributing patented software if the patent is actually actively > > enforced (such as the MP3 encoding patents in the LAME case). IMHO > > ffmpeg is not really troublesome, because it does not include MP3 > > encoding or AAC encoding/decoding functions. > Given what's going on in the world: kids getting sued on Napster, and > projectionists wearing night vision goggles, MPlayer just doesn't pass > the "smell test." Right now no one notices it, but it will get totally > smacked around like a redheaded stepchild as soon as they do. This is scaremongering, and is no basis for deciding whether to distribute a piece of software in the archive. There is a big difference between exercising due caution, and cowering in fear at the spectre of a lawsuit. I trust that the ftp-masters simply haven't had the time necessary to review the current mplayer situation with the detail that it warrants. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature