Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package
aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
> MJ Ray's already done such a summary; it's rather trivially inadequate,
> due to the information its summarising being equally inadequate.
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/12/msg00901.html
So.... the summary amounts to "patents". Is that right? In other words, the
previous (substantial) copyright issues *are* considered to be cleared up.
Having it REJECTed with a "needs to have algorithms covered by
actively enforced patents identified and removed" would be really helpful.
Having a list of specific areas which are considered too dangerous (ffmpeg
code, for instance) would be even better.
> Coming to a decision on inadequate information isn't particularly clever.
"Clever" isn't the issue. I couldn't care less how "clever" the ftpmasters
are. Too clever by half, perhaps, with the "leave difficult packages in
limbo" policy. Coming to a decision on inadequate information is actually
very helpful, when it's done in the form of "This is the information we need
before we can consider this package". I haven't seen that.
Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
> Seriously, if you want something useful to happen about this, *thoroughly*
> investigate what's actually going on, with an open mind about the
> possibility of coming to the conclusion that, eg, it's just too much of
> a risk to include mplayer in Debian.
Hey, sure. Why is it too much of a risk? Can we get some background here?
Originally it was too much of a risk because upstream was really bad about
copyrights -- this was a FAQ. Like I said, some people spent literally years
straightening that out. Hence the "what the hell is wrong now?" attitude.
If it really is FFMPEG patent issues -- and I have no idea whether it is --
then I believe the packagers would be happy to just remove that code, because
what some might call a "crippled" mplayer is still better than no mplayer.
Incidentally, the current attitude of "we won't include new packages with
FFMPEG, but we will include FFMPEG" is legally stupid. It doesn't get you
anything if you do get sued; if anything, it helps prove that you knew you
had a problem, and so were wilfully infringing. If this is really the issue,
we should kick out the existing FFMPEG packages (and I'm happy to file the
serious bugs, if that will get things started).
Reply to: