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

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

> 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: