On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote: > we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael > Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue > himself for his own code. How can Debian be sure that that's the case? Debian (correctly) avoids areas of questionable legality like the plauge. > AFAIR around 0.50 we checked our code for license infringing, and > solved them either by contacting its author and requested permission > for GPL relicensing, or by rewriting the code in question. How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught? Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below? > If MPlayer is not 100% GPL (except lrmi.c, but that can be left out, > sacrificing the very useful VESA video output), we are willing to fix > it. Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely under the GPL? > Just be cautious, don't take an argument which also applies to xine If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached. It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpKXsNhEGiZA.pgp
Description: PGP signature