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

[arpi@thot.banki.hu: Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems]



Forwarded to debian-legal

-- 
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,

Sorry for not replying to teh thread, i'm not subscribed to this list.
Gabu FWD'ed the thread and it seems that so many debian ppl thinks and
says very false statements. So I have to tell you some comemnts and the
truth.

> From: Gabucino <gabucino@localhost.localdomain>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
> Message-ID: <20030126164451.GA25362@woodstock.localdomain>

> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >  - staying legal (that bunch of sources was legal because each "libs" w=
> ere
> > >    distinctable, but _what license would you have given to the binary?_)
> > This is not legal, at least when there the software includes some GPL
> > code.
> So free speech is not legal?

it seems that debian is not only speech...
and we'll see that debian is also not free...

but debian is actually a new OS/2 (half OS) edition.
it contains thousands of programs but only half of each one, the other half
was moderated out due to legality reasons :)

so the users have to download the missing half from the net, breaking the
law. debian's law.

> > That doesn't prevent the binaries from working, using several packages
> > with different cpu optimisations. Many packages in Debian already work
> > this way.
> We call that method "hack".
And it's a big waste of space. Think of different binaries for the possible
combinations of MMX, MMX2, SSE, SSE2, 3Dnow, 3Dnow2. and then C code
compiled for i386, i586, i686, k6 etc. and then think of non-x86 archs.
and then debian can introduce the one-program-one-cd concept.

> > >  - we wouldn't have been #1
> > >  - people wouldn't have a working movie player EVEN NOW
> > Wrong.
> No, true. I am not talking about the present. xine was (is?:) just a buggy
> piece of hunk that threw sig11s every minute, when MPlayer was the stablest
> movie player.
:)

> The stuff I meant: half of the libavcodec and MPlayer developers are the same.
> They evolved together. If their developers behaved like debian developers do
> (no offense), we'd still be playing Indeo5 AVIs.
or uncompressed ones.

> > There have been several movie players around, which are much less
> > painful to install and which comply with the DFSG - and they are
> > included in the main Debian distribution.
> Amen.
And they don't play any modern media file, but since debian is well known
for many years old application versions and 'i'm using debian since 20
years' users it shouldn't be a problem...

users (and mplayer developers) want an app which is able to play the films,
trailers, advertisements, pron, whatever they download from the net.

and we accept that it's at the boundaries of legality, when it comes for
sorenson video, mpeg4 and such things. this is why we didn't expect (and
didn't want) mplayer to be part of any distribution. users can download it
and use it. shipping stripped down mplayer/2 with distros has no sense.
just look at suse 8.1. it comes with mplayer, without mp3 codec, mpeg4
codec, asf demuxer and so on. it's a big unusable shit. and users keep
complaining to us: when will be .asf support implemented? why doesn't it
play my divx files? and so on. and they end up removing teh suse version and
download the 'original' working one. suse could save few MBs of space and
use for more nice kde3 wallpapers or sth.

> > And even with all its optimize-everything-or-die crap, mplayer doesn't
> > perform better.
> However, many people beg for its inclusion in Debian. Why? :)
see my .signature for the answer...

> > > Ehh ;)
> > > Would you like an >500k diff included in the libmpeg2/ dir? :)))
> > A changelog is not necessary a diff.

It's an 1.2.1 cvs version. The changes were discussed with Walken (aka.
Michel Lespinasse, current libmpeg2 maintainer) he even helped me with
some things. Teh fact is that libmpeg2 was designed for OMS (nowdays
called xine). Since teh architecture of it and mplayer differs a lot,
it had to be changed, and he didn't wanted those changes in the official
libmpeg2. Later he wanted, and the current 0.3.1 is very close to something
we need, but tere are still a few problems, our patch is still waiting at
mpeg2-dev list for commit. but it's gettig OT.
So, i really doubt that he will sue us for using libmpeg2 with modifications.

> Huh? If someone wants that, he can do 'cvs -z9 log | less'
Agree.
I can even provide a small script called cvslog.sh which generates nice
ChangeLog format text from cvs history. The resulting file is 1.8MB for
whole mplayer now. I see no sense of including it with releases, everyone
can get it for cvs.

> > With all that willingness from upstream, this will indeed make things
> > difficult.
> Life is difficult.
:))))

> > But if you want to be #1 (as your goal seems to be world domination), you
we are already #1 but it doesn't matter, we make mplayer for ourself and
not for idiots.

> > A user who can install a working xine package in 3 clicks won't care it runs
> > 0.001% slower, if it just works.
"works"? "0.001%"? dreaming?

> > The Debian xine package doesn't use libavcodec (which is indeed illegal
> > in some countries AFAIK).

rotfl.
just downloaded libxine1_1-beta2-4_i386.deb from ftp.hu.debian.org.
it DOES conatins libavcodec, along other anti-debian stuff:
root:/usr/lib/xine/plugins/1.0.0# strings xineplug_decode_ff.so | grep FFmpeg0
FFmpeg0.4.6b4643

> LOL :)))
> Then what does it use? Win32 codecs? XVID? Have you ever used libavcodec?

all of them.

the strange thing is that they are legal in xine (and avifile and others)
but illegal in mplayer. so wonder why i'm disappointed by debian rules?
even if god debian-legal it's illegal, i'm interested in what' sthe
difference between mplayer and others, why are you discriminative to us?
i sugegst you removing all codecs and demuxers and everything related to
characters MPEG from any media player of debian. then it's fair...

> > > Success?
> > You have indeed proven that someone wanting to package mplayer will have
> > a hard time dealing with upstream.
> Interesting, Dominik (our "official" RPM packager) works in close contact with
> us, and never faced any hardships.. In fact, he is a developer with CVS write
> access.
yes, and i like the way he works, after negotiate with us and the users
he makes usable, working packages. i expected teh same from debian but they
never asked us about what is experimental and what should be there in the
package and what are the recommended options for binary distribution.
(since the defaults are for source distrib.)

even worse: they start the packaging procedure with the heavy usage of
the 'rm' command to strip down things they think illegal...
and at the end they wonder why is it unusable, and finally drop it.
or even more worse: put the unusable package into the distro and then
wonder why (or even worse: redirect to us) the users keep complaining.

> Just as Linus said on dri-devel, it would be better to go and _include_ things
> with unclear legality (S3TC), and see if it matters to anyone, than go and
> whine in the corner.

I usually don't like Linus but it was very very true and good advice.
Note that several linxu distros follow this approach, they include
apps like mplayer, with all teh features (i know some shipping even
libdvdcss) and then wait for reactions. _nothing_ was removed due to
legal answer up to this moment.


A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team

--
Developer of MPlayer, the Movie Player for Linux - http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu
    "However, many people beg for its inclusion in Debian. Why?" - Gabucino
  "Because having new software in Debian is good." - Josselin Mouette
"Because having good software in Debian is new." - Gabucino


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

--- End Message ---

Attachment: pgpSUF9W6K0Ko.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: