Re: [Cooker] illegal binaries?
Ainsi parlait Alexander Skwar : So sprach »Ben Bruscella« am 2002-01-17 um 10:15:54 +1100 : actually 'illegal' to distribute binaries.Same with lame I think. I am sure this will become more common, so how will this situation be handled in a distribution like Mandrake? Well, I don't see much of a problem - if it's illegal to distribute the binary, it won't be included. Refering to legality in the case of mplayer, which is of course used only to view backup divx of your own dvd, has always amazed me. The legality of the windows dll package they also distribute seems to bother them a bit less. However, the MPlayer guys also give another explanation about why MPlayer binaries are bad: MPlayer is always optimized for the machine it was built on. So, if *I*'d build MPlayer binaries, I'd get Athlon binaries, which won't do any good on Celeron systems. For my own experience, i used a long time a package compiled without any optimisation on several boxes without any problems. And now that i recompile it before use, i would have difficulties to notify real improvements. Now MPlayer is a rather good example - for apps like this, it would be good if someone would release a binary rpm, which upon installation (rpm -Uvh) would compile the stuff and then install the optimized version. Hmm, interesting idea... Maybe I'll try to do something in this direction ;) You're free to test it. However, i think improving urpmi to work with source package, as it is currently evolving, will provide a far better and more general solution. This would not be illegal, would it? I mean, if the %post section would compile the stuff, the binary (or rather noarch?) RPM would only distribute the source. Alexander Skwar -- Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html
[Cooker] illegal binaries?
Just curious.. I was recently reading about MPlayer (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/), and it is actually 'illegal' to distribute binaries.Same with lame I think. I am sure this will become more common, so how will this situation be handled in a distribution like Mandrake? Ben
Re: [Cooker] illegal binaries?
Just curious.. I was recently reading about MPlayer (http://www.mplayerhq.hu/), and it is actually 'illegal' to distribute binaries.Same with lame I think. I am sure this will become more common, so how will this situation be handled in a distribution like Mandrake? Ben It is not so much illegal to distribute binaries. It is more a problem of patents you have to break to make binaries
Re: [Cooker] illegal binaries?
So sprach »Ben Bruscella« am 2002-01-17 um 10:15:54 +1100 : actually 'illegal' to distribute binaries.Same with lame I think. I am sure this will become more common, so how will this situation be handled in a distribution like Mandrake? Well, I don't see much of a problem - if it's illegal to distribute the binary, it won't be included. However, the MPlayer guys also give another explanation about why MPlayer binaries are bad: MPlayer is always optimized for the machine it was built on. So, if *I*'d build MPlayer binaries, I'd get Athlon binaries, which won't do any good on Celeron systems. Now MPlayer is a rather good example - for apps like this, it would be good if someone would release a binary rpm, which upon installation (rpm -Uvh) would compile the stuff and then install the optimized version. Hmm, interesting idea... Maybe I'll try to do something in this direction ;) This would not be illegal, would it? I mean, if the %post section would compile the stuff, the binary (or rather noarch?) RPM would only distribute the source. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.de | Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.de - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 2 days 2 hours 10 minutes
