Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
> > The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
> > order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patented stuff was
> > excised, right?
>
> If you can demonstrate that there's nothing in there that's potentially
> patented, sure. That seems pretty unlikely, though.
Aren't we in a similar situation with other stuff that is in main already?
rsync springs to mind.
regards
Andrew
Reply to: