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

Re: new mplayer 1.0pre7try2 package

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 04:07:51PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> 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.

The rsync related patents are, ttbomk, limited to syncing in a different
manner to what rsync actually does, though rproxy or librsync might be
affected. There are also prior art issues, and whether the rsync suite
of programs is actually covered in the first place. The idea is to get
an idea of what the patent claims are, to see how related they are,
and to see whether the owner of the patent actually cares; not to prove
beyond a doubt there's no possibility of any patent infringement. Though
if you can do the latter, that's obviously good too.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: