Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the infringing. So what? We have an existing policy. You've lost me here. I have no clue what our policy has to do with the legality/illegality of patent infringing... It was already explained. Unless we have a particular reason to fear an enforcement action, we don't fret about patents. We know many many companies (IBM, for example) that have large war-chests of software patents, but say they won't enforce them against anyone who doesn't try to enforce one on them. This is the unofficial policy of many more patent holders. So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to worry. Thomas
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to worry. Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing a patent which was what I was discussing. Don Armstrong -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel. -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Japanese font license problem
Hi, (I don't subscribe debian-legal. I just read the thread via http://lists.debian.org/ web interface.) Are these all bitmap fonts, then? No, the list includes outline fonts. These outline fonts adopt TYPEBANK font as a starting point of desigining. --- Tomohiro KUBOTA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/
Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?
Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the license changed? -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit : We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Anyway, after all successive problems we encountered with mplayer, the maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. You can call this discrimination, I will call this careful attention towards some people who already proved to be incompetent regarding legal issues. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette wrote: If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. lol. Why is it stripped? It's done with the binary DLL. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Of course, if they are the favored side. maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. What about innocent until guilty ? Show me the nonfree part of MPlayer. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgp0GkzNSdd1C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Should this perhaps be mentioned in the package description? In http://packages.debian.org/unstable/graphics/xine-ui.html there is no mention of WMV, but there is a link to http://xine.sf.net/ for a more complete list of supported audio/video formats, and http://xine.sf.net/ says that xine decodes WMV. I'm not saying you should write Don't bother getting this crippled Debian package; get the upstream source instead, but I think it's only fair to tell people if functionality has been stripped off. You could include a link to freepatents.org by way of explanation.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit : We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Anyway, after all successive problems we encountered with mplayer, the maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. You can call this discrimination, I will call this careful attention towards some people who already proved to be incompetent regarding legal issues. While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like any other project. While mplayer must be checked carefully, if mplayer is currently DFSG-compliant, it should not be complicated to convince ftpmaster to let Debian users having mplayer. The historical account of the mplayer team should not cause rejection of mplayer. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 10:35, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit : If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Should this perhaps be mentioned in the package description? In http://packages.debian.org/unstable/graphics/xine-ui.html there is no mention of WMV, but there is a link to http://xine.sf.net/ for a more complete list of supported audio/video formats, and http://xine.sf.net/ says that xine decodes WMV. It does decode WMV8. As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's, but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Op wo 08-10-2003, om 02:53 schreef Brian T. Sniffen: Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn Maynard wrote: One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have fallen off the site. There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. In theory, yes. However, in practice, when dealing with patents, I suggest you do pursue just that 'not getting sued' goal; since literally everything computer-related is patented, there's no other way. If you've found a violation of the DFSG in xine, please file a serious bug against xine-ui or libxine1, as appropriate. The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything about patents, only about licenses). -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your addressbook. *now*.
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such software can nevertheless be distributed in main.) You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right? Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured multimedia container format. Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is the string MICROCODE SOURCE MATERIALS. MWAVE MICROCODE. (C) COPYRIGHT IBM CORP. 1997. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. It also looks like there's full symbols. Perhaps these files are the source code, when opened with some proprietary dsp firmware editor we don't have? Has anyone asked IBM yet? -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On 2003-10-08, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent as enforced. Alternatively, does anyone think there's a chance Microsoft would be willing to state they would not enforce the patent against us? I believe they want this format to be more widely used, no? What if Microsoft publically states that they would enforce the patent against Windows players, but not against Linux players? Peace, Dylan
Re: Japanese font license problem
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:59:22AM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote: As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co., Are these all bitmap fonts, then? In some countries (notably the US), copyright does not subsist in bitmap fonts. Anybody know if they are in Japan, and if so, is that honoured in the rest of the world? IMHO, this is irrelevant here. Legally, copyright on the fonts exists in a very few countries at all (AFAIK in the UK, Germany and Sweden). But the font foundries well known as aggressive defenders and enforcers of their (mostly legally-nonexistent) intellectual prioperty rights. In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten, harass and terrorize everyyone who will ever touch their intellectual property. So, it is not question of law - it is a question of safety.
Re: Japanese font license problem
On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten, harass and terrorize everyyone who will ever touch their intellectual property. If I understood the original post correctly, TYPEBANK's font was copied without changes by one group (the LABO123 font), and then modified by two later groups who mistakenly thought the font was available under a free license. So it seems likely that TYPEBANK would win a suit in a country in which fonts are copyrightable, since there's a clear chain of derived works (although IANAL). Peace, Dylan
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to worry. Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing a patent which was what I was discussing. It's also an overstatement to say that any legal patent violation is illegal. First, it's important to distinguish crimes and civil violations. But beyond that, it's also important to know that a consented-to violation, even implicitly consented-to, is not illegal.
Re: License requirements for DSP binaries?
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:03, Brian Ristuccia wrote: You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right? Yes. Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured multimedia container format. Interesting. Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is the string MICROCODE SOURCE MATERIALS. MWAVE MICROCODE. (C) COPYRIGHT IBM CORP. 1997. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. It also looks like there's full symbols. Perhaps these files are the source code, when opened with some proprietary dsp firmware editor we don't have? Possibly; but I suspect that these files contain binaries, not source code. Has anyone asked IBM yet? I wrote once got no reply. I have just written again to the guys who ported the driver to Linux. -- Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette wrote: As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's, but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer. Then let's make it clear. - is xine's win32dll loader modified to deny loading WMV9 dlls or - just DLLs aren't distributed -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpG1k3IqPShP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:36:23AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything about patents, only about licenses). License is relevant to both patents and copyrights. If software is affected by an enforced patent, and a license to that patent is not granted, the work is non-free. More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law, then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright. For example, if the Official Use Logo was placed under a permissive copyright license, but maintained strict restrictions under trademark law, then the freedoms required by the DFSG are not available--it would still not be DFSG-free. Using laws other than copyright to restrict freedom is not a loophole to main. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote: Then let's make it clear. - is xine's win32dll loader modified to deny loading WMV9 dlls or - just DLLs aren't distributed Since MS doesn't appear to be suing anyone nowdays[1] for patent violations while causing DLLs to be loaded, we've never had a problem with programs that load them. (wine, FE, does this.) However, since they're generally not free software, nor (for the most part) are the even legal to (re-)distribute, we don't distribute them in Debian. (I'd strongly recommend that mplayer take a strong look at the DLL licenses if mplayer is distributing them.) Don Armstrong 1: If they ever were in the past... -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law, then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright. For example, if the Official Use Logo was placed under a permissive copyright license, but maintained strict restrictions under trademark law, then the freedoms required by the DFSG are not available--it would still not be DFSG-free. Actually, I believe it still would be DFSG-free. You are right in general that it doesn't matter which law is being used to impinge freedom. But a free Official Use Logo could (I think) be written in such a way as to be clearly DFSG-free, given that we already allow labelling and naming restrictions. So we can permit people to modify the bottle, but still not use it for non-Official things, and that doesn't imping freedom, just as people can use and modify the special code for the TeX logo, but they can't apply it to anything that doesn't pass Trip. Thomas
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 02:16:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Actually, I believe it still would be DFSG-free. You are right in general that it doesn't matter which law is being used to impinge freedom. But a free Official Use Logo could (I think) be written in such a way as to be clearly DFSG-free, given that we already allow labelling and naming restrictions. So we can permit people to modify the bottle, but still not use it for non-Official things, and that doesn't imping freedom, just as people can use and modify the special code for the TeX logo, but they can't apply it to anything that doesn't pass Trip. The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to fall under the spirit of the if you change it, don't call it foo allowances. We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong wrote: However, since they're generally not free software, nor (for the most part) are the even legal to (re-)distribute, we don't distribute them in Debian. (I'd strongly recommend that mplayer take a strong look at the DLL licenses if mplayer is distributing them.) We don't care of Win32 DLLs, because - contrary to the popular belief - they aren't useful anymore: libavcodec can decode _every_ popular format, except the WMV9 codec, but that's only a matter of time. Personally I use only one Win32 DLL, and only for nvidia_vid debugging purposes. So this is not a problem - again. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpW8cvMQgN1O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:42:30AM +0200, Gabucino wrote: So this is not a problem - again. And you're being rudely dismissive - again. Stop acting as if mplayer has never had licensing problems - again - and as if being careful of licensing problems is a waste of time - again. Debian folks are extending infinite patience, and in response you have been consistently impatient, rude, and now you're pretending you're being persecuted. If your goal is really to get mplayer into Debian, your attitude is unhelpful. All it buys you is flamewars and killfiles. (I've had enough of Gabucino. Re-plonk.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Is the OSL DFSG free?
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:51:42PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the license changed? I think that, as a rule, the -legal mavens don't unilaterally approach the authors of works or licenses. The affected package maintainer is generally a person better suited to do so. -- G. Branden Robinson|Half of being smart is knowing what Debian GNU/Linux |you're dumb at. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |-- David Gerrold http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:21:14AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like any other project. While mplayer must be checked carefully, if mplayer is currently DFSG-compliant, it should not be complicated to convince ftpmaster to let Debian users having mplayer. The historical account of the mplayer team should not cause rejection of mplayer. Of course it should. See other messages I've posted about relying upon upstream authors having done their homework so we can have a reasonable and good-faith belief that the copyright and legal notices in a work submitted to Debian are accurate. With MPlayer, we have reason to lack such confidence. The license vetting done by -legal and the Debian archive administrators is contextual and will always have to be. The context of our experiences with MPlayer do not inspire much faith in the representations of Gabucino regarding the license status of various code distributed by the MPlayer organization. -- G. Branden Robinson| Eternal vigilance is the price of Debian GNU/Linux | liberty. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Wendell Phillips http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
