Re: Java, mplayer
Joel Konkle-Parker <jjk3@msstate.edu> writes:
> Quoting Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com>:
>
>> Joel Konkle-Parker <jjk3@msstate.edu> writes:
>>
>> > Why can't Sun's j2re and mplayer be provided in non-free or contrib?
>> > I've read various things about how their legal status is
>> > incompatible with Debian's DFSG, but I thought that's what non-free
>> > was for in the first place.
>>
>> Things in non-free must be freely distributable in binary form. I
>> don't think Sun's java allows that. I think it even puts restrictions
>> on that.
>
> Ok, I can understand that. But why must non-free distribute in
> binary form?
Ok you weren't being clear. When you said why doesn't Debian
distribute Java, I assumed you meant the java binaries. Obviously for
Debian to be able to distribute binaries they must have permission to
do so.
> I've dabbled in Gentoo for a little while, and they have a system
> that prompts for download of the j2re from Sun
I think this should be possible. But I'm no expert.
>> As for mplayer the thing with that is that mplayer in its natural
>> state might contain certain patent or copyright violations, making it
>> illegal to distribute it. Debian could remove those parts but then it
>> would make mplayer useless. The developpers of mplayer have said that
>> they don't want people to distribute cut down versions of mplayer
>> because people will laugh at the results ("what do you mean this
>> player can't play .avi, real, or quicktime?").
>
> This one makes a little more sense. Although what's different about
> this and libdvdcss? We have a somewhat convulated process for
> installing libdvdcss with ogle, but it works.
In many cases this would mean recompiling mplayer from scratch. I
think there might also be other problems with mplayer (licenses not
being clear on some files, etc.). But anyways there are unofficial
debs for mplayer, and it's not that hard to compile it from source :)
Bijan
--
Bijan Soleymani <bijan@psq.com>
http://www.crasseux.com
Reply to: