Re: Respect the wishes of the mplayer authors
>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
>> > If you do want to include mplayer in your distro, how about releasing it under another name than mplayer, so that the real and lovable mplayer won't be mistaken for a cripled and unusable application? To quote Bruce Perens explaining the 4. right of open source: "if you make a change, you might have to change the name of the program or mark out your change very clearly"
>>
>> If foolish tells me that's the best way to shut up people,
>> then that may be done, especially when mplayer in Debian is not
>> the same as what may be obtained from compiling upstream source.
>
>Actually this seems to be a nice and easy solution, but at the end
>it is not.
>
>If I understand correctly the parts that are missing are the CSS library,
>which definitely can not be distributed.
>
>Another topic is the ffmpeg part. I am asking myself how can it be
>that we have a libxine package (a dynamic library) that
>includes ffmpeg, but it is not possible to either package ffmpeg
>nor to include it in mplayer ...
>
>I have to agree with sindre and the mplayer authors that removing
>ffmpeg cripples mplayer.
>
>Anyhow, the question is not if Debian has mplayer or not,
>the question is who decides what gets accepted, and why ?
>
>Is it just luck that xine is in Debian, or is there an explanation ?
Did anyone find out the answer to this? I suspect the place to
search/ post is debian-legal@l.d.o
... just did some searching, and a good thread to start seems to be
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00140.html
- I'm starting to read up now, but it still doesn't look simple.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
cheers
zen
Reply to: