Re: lib sdl

[Florent Rougon <flo@via.ecp.fr>]

Andrea Mennucc <debian@Tonelli.sns.it> wrote:

> ... there is non-free-software that can be distributed, and
> non-free-sw that cannot be distributed (regardless of where)

And? Nobody said the contrary. Jérôme simply said that software that
can't be distributed is non-free software, which is (was?) the case of
mplayer, despite its *claim* to be released under the GPL.

> ... upstream authors should be listened to (after all, they do most of
> the job), and

Well, this is not *so* clear-cut with free licenses where you can cut
and paste code from here and there and be the upstream developer for the
resulting software.

> ... courtesy is not an option (at least, I usually try to :-)

Nobody said the contrary, IIRC.

The problem with mplayer is IMHO that:
 1 - mplayer is illegal (it claims to be GPL but someone pointed again last
     week on debian-devel IIRC some pieces of code whose license was either
     unknown or non-GPL-compatible) ;
 2 - instead of playing low profile due to this aspect, the (or part of
     the) mplayer developers are quite arrogant and have forbidden
     binary distribution for a while though I am not sure whether the
     GPL allows them to do this.

> ... Intent-To-Package have a reason to exist, and not 'the first one
> who uploads wins'

I prefer not commenting on this one as I don't know much about package
hijacking...

> It seems you have different ideas; I am not losing my sleep on this.

Good! :)

-- 
Florent


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