Re: MPEG in general Was: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
On Tuesday 11 January 2005 03:57, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > * Chris Cheney
> > | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
> > | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me
> > | that ffmpeg was allowed into main.
> > According to rumors I heard, it was allowed in since other
> > applications (xine at least, I think) already included it. So it
> > didn't really make a difference -- if we're infringing on patents
> > with ffmpeg, we are with xine as well.
> > (Apologies if xine is not the package I'm thinking about.)
> Wouldn't that be an argument to have xine removed from Debian not the
> addition of ffmpeg?
I'll dare to take the other route and ask: what is now holding back
software such as mplayer/mencoder, transcode and mjpegtools from
I hope I'm not pushing the envelope here, and I'm not trying to ignite a
lengthy discussion about the legal matters (since IMO we are already
past that one with the inclusion of ffmpeg). I merely think we should
consider the possibility of releasing Sarge with these other extremely
Frederik Dannemare | mailto:email@example.com
http://frederik.dannemare.net | http://www.linuxworlddomination.dk