On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:49:55AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
> > Note that we're not really interested in decss, and libdvdcss is the
> > important one, so however this plays out it needs to result in a
> > decision that means libdvdcss is okay too (getting off on a
> > technicality is no good).
> >
> > I'm not sure that the trade secret issue was ever an issue for
> > libdvdcss.
>
> Especially since Lindows is distributing libdvdcss with its DVD
> player and calls it a "licensed commercial decryption codec", which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This description is fulfilled by the fact that Lindows are shipping it
(since they didn't say *who* was licensing anything). Could just be
blowing smoke.
> probably means the DVDCCA is aware of libdvdcss and even allows its
> redistribution (under the GPL, of course, because the libdvdcss authors
> never gave permission to redistribute under other terms).
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature