Re: MPlayer revisited
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:34:36AM +0200, Andrea Mennucc wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. > > I have followed the history of mplayer vs Debian, and I > saw many flames, but yet this line by Andrew Suffield is > an all-time record > > why isnt it possible to have a civil discussion on this matter? > > this is sooo sad Actually, no, it's just Andrew being his usual something-short-of-productive self. You can be sure that nobody takes flames from him seriously, since he doles them out indiscriminately and in great quantity. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
Andrew Suffield wrote: > with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. I have followed the history of mplayer vs Debian, and I saw many flames, but yet this line by Andrew Suffield is an all-time record why isnt it possible to have a civil discussion on this matter? this is sooo sad a. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On 16 Jun 2005 10:44:44 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dariush Pietrzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. > > It's sad to see that discussion is returning to those levels, oh well.. > > It's expected. See http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html#difficult It's expected from Andrew in any case. I suppose I should be grateful that there's at least one debian-legal regular who makes me look conciliatory ... :-P Cheers, - Michael
Re: MPlayer revisited
Dariush Pietrzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. > It's sad to see that discussion is returning to those levels, oh well.. It's expected. See http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer.html#difficult -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 03:14:34AM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > > > and not past statements made by other people. > > > > > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > > > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > > > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > > > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. > > > > Specifically, it doesn't help that mplayer developers have pretty much > > run their credibility into the ground by now. > > > > After countless rounds of "It's free now!" "Here's six more blatant > > abuses, three of which you already knew about [references]" "Fuck > > off", I'm not overly surprised that people are disinclined to believe > > them. > > Ever since I restarted this discussion in March 2004[1] all the issues > raised by people on this list have been addressed by me. If some are > still outstanding, please point them out. Personally, I can't really say that I care about mplayer, I can just see why people would be disinclined to deal with it after all that nonsense. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:51:43AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > > and not past statements made by other people. > > > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. > > Specifically, it doesn't help that mplayer developers have pretty much > run their credibility into the ground by now. > > After countless rounds of "It's free now!" "Here's six more blatant > abuses, three of which you already knew about [references]" "Fuck > off", I'm not overly surprised that people are disinclined to believe > them. Ever since I restarted this discussion in March 2004[1] all the issues raised by people on this list have been addressed by me. If some are still outstanding, please point them out. > Unfortunately we don't have a good solution to the problem of dealing > with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. I'm part of upstream. I have neither lied to nor insulted anyone here. Whether I am trustworthy or not is for others to decide, but all the facts I have presented can easily be verified. Please don't let us degenerate to name-calling and keep the discussion as civil as it has been up to this point. Thanks. Diego [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00235.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
> with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. It's sad to see that discussion is returning to those levels, oh well.. -- Dariush Pietrzak, Key fingerprint = 40D0 9FFB 9939 7320 8294 05E0 BCC7 02C4 75CC 50D9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > and not past statements made by other people. > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. Specifically, it doesn't help that mplayer developers have pretty much run their credibility into the ground by now. After countless rounds of "It's free now!" "Here's six more blatant abuses, three of which you already knew about [references]" "Fuck off", I'm not overly surprised that people are disinclined to believe them. Unfortunately we don't have a good solution to the problem of dealing with a package where upstream are untrustworthy lying bastards. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 10:59:41AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > My understanding is that the opposition to software patents has > > engendered a belief that ANY risk is too great. For political > > reasons, this may be the right course of action. However, from a > > legal perspective, if I were advising a client I would look at the > > benefits and risks of the issue. Has a software patent ever been > > enforced against a Linux distriubtion? If it has, what were the > > results? (I'm guess nothing more that a cease and dissist order). > > Not a Linux distribution, but the ECP in France was scared by DTS Inc > into taking libdts/libdca offline. The threat: an invalid patent, > nonetheless granted by the EPO. FYI: Debian provides libdts packages. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
* MJ Ray: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I was told that it is now up to the FTP masters to review the package >> and admit it into the distribution. I was also told that these people >> are worried that MPlayer might infringe upon software patents. [...] > > ..might infringe upon patents that will cause problems for debian, > in particular. Obviously, Debian is willing to take some risks to be able distribute interoperable software at all (cf. the JPEG situation). Given that most of the patents mplayer can infringe are already touched by other software in Debian, I can't see how it would significally increase Debian's patent exposure. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:09:24AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > My problem is that ftpmasters are ephemeral creatures that are very hard > > to come by. > > I think that's a common feeling about delegates. I think it's > linked to 26 developers holding two or more organisational roles > (and two have 7 each). :-) > > [...] At CeBIT I finally spoke > > with J?rg Jaspert, who is an ftpmaster assistant, but - as far as i > > understood him - he does not have authority to make any final decisions. > > Then I don't understand J?rg Jaspert's role at all. He is listed > on http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/organization as handling NEW. > Matthew Garrett's description of ftpmastering doesn't seem to > describe these FTP assistants. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00184.html Well, if you don't understand it, guess how it looks to people not involved in the Debian project. "Opaque". > > So would it perhaps be possible to put me in direct contact with an > > ftpmaster? Direct communication does wonders when it comes to clearing > > up confusion and uncertainty. > > You're preaching to the converted here, but I believe I'm mostly > ignored by the three ftpmasters on that list with higher status > than J?rg Jaspert. That is partly why I usually work on ITPs, > bug reports and external questions. Their email address is > [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you want to see whether you can find > out what they'd like you to provide. Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My understanding is that the opposition to software patents has > engendered a belief that ANY risk is too great. For political > reasons, this may be the right course of action. However, from a > legal perspective, if I were advising a client I would look at the > benefits and risks of the issue. Has a software patent ever been > enforced against a Linux distriubtion? If it has, what were the > results? (I'm guess nothing more that a cease and dissist order). Not a Linux distribution, but the ECP in France was scared by DTS Inc into taking libdts/libdca offline. The threat: an invalid patent, nonetheless granted by the EPO. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Sunday 12 June 2005 08:31 am, MJ Ray wrote: > "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This seems like a potentially bad idea, actually. I certainly can't > > cite specific laws, but I seem to recall from similar discussions that > > if a patent holder can prove a patent was violated in full knowledge of > > the violation, he is entitled to triple damages. > > Law student Sean Kellogg disputed that popular legend on this list > in February 2005. Because I don't live in "home of the brave, land > of the legal fee" I don't know who to believe. Like I said then, and really meant to put together something a bit more sophisticated on the topic later, the issues is one of what constitutes "notice." The finding for trebble damages does not require specific or actual notice of the patent number... in fact, failure to engage in due dillegence itself my be evidence of knoweldge!!! This puts Debian in a position most software companies find themselves every time they prepare to release... what is the actual legal risk? My understanding is that the opposition to software patents has engendered a belief that ANY risk is too great. For political reasons, this may be the right course of action. However, from a legal perspective, if I were advising a client I would look at the benefits and risks of the issue. Has a software patent ever been enforced against a Linux distriubtion? If it has, what were the results? (I'm guess nothing more that a cease and dissist order). If our concern is with Debian's users, then the issue d-l should be devise a method toappropriatly notify those users of any potential risk involved with their actions (downloading and using mplayer). Let the individual know the full situation upfront and they can make the appropriate call based on their situation. (private users probably won't care... a big company with deap pockets might care a great deal). As a side note, most (if not all) licensing/contract deals with high tech companies have clauses dealing with patent indemnities because the simply truth is you JUST don't know about the patents out there. The assumption is that if you are violating the patent, you'll figure out how to cut a deal with the patent holder. I think the bigger concern with outstanding patents is not with the legal risks or trebble damages, but whether patent encumbered software complies with the DFSG. Seems to me there are all sorts of possible issues there with freedom to modify and distribute. > > In the course of > > researching patents possibly violated by MPlayer, one would surely > > uncover the presence of the same patents in code already in Debian -- > > the already-mentioned Xine, Avifile, etc. > > Does not knowing about a bug make it any less of a bug? > > -- > MJR/slef > My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ > Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: MPlayer revisited
Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > My problem is that ftpmasters are ephemeral creatures that are very hard > to come by. I think that's a common feeling about delegates. I think it's linked to 26 developers holding two or more organisational roles (and two have 7 each). > [...] At CeBIT I finally spoke > with Jörg Jaspert, who is an ftpmaster assistant, but - as far as i > understood him - he does not have authority to make any final decisions. Then I don't understand Jörg Jaspert's role at all. He is listed on http://www.uk.debian.org/intro/organization as handling NEW. Matthew Garrett's description of ftpmastering doesn't seem to describe these FTP assistants. http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00184.html > So would it perhaps be possible to put me in direct contact with an > ftpmaster? Direct communication does wonders when it comes to clearing > up confusion and uncertainty. You're preaching to the converted here, but I believe I'm mostly ignored by the three ftpmasters on that list with higher status than Jörg Jaspert. That is partly why I usually work on ITPs, bug reports and external questions. Their email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you want to see whether you can find out what they'd like you to provide. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > > and not past statements made by other people. > > I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer > developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster > (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we > have to wait for a legal brain to comment. My problem is that ftpmasters are ephemeral creatures that are very hard to come by. I regularly attend Linux-related conferences and trade shows and pass by the Debian booth every time in order to talk to somebody about the MPlayer situation but I have so far never managed to get my hands on an ftpmaster. I always get answers along the lines of "I know somebody who knows an ftpmaster.". At CeBIT I finally spoke with Jörg Jaspert, who is an ftpmaster assistant, but - as far as i understood him - he does not have authority to make any final decisions. So would it perhaps be possible to put me in direct contact with an ftpmaster? Direct communication does wonders when it comes to clearing up confusion and uncertainty. > [unclear description] > > 1) It implies that MPlayer contains DeCSS, which it does not. MPlayer > >contains libdvdcss. > > I think that's a new one to me and I accept the correction entirely. > > [...] > > 2) It suggests that libdvdread is a replacement for libdvdcss, which it > >is not. > > Only if you view the text at a particular angle. That's why I call > it accurate but unclear. > > I'll update it later. Thanks. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems like a potentially bad idea, actually. I certainly can't > cite specific laws, but I seem to recall from similar discussions that > if a patent holder can prove a patent was violated in full knowledge of > the violation, he is entitled to triple damages. Law student Sean Kellogg disputed that popular legend on this list in February 2005. Because I don't live in "home of the brave, land of the legal fee" I don't know who to believe. > In the course of > researching patents possibly violated by MPlayer, one would surely > uncover the presence of the same patents in code already in Debian -- > the already-mentioned Xine, Avifile, etc. Does not knowing about a bug make it any less of a bug? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has > become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit > and not past statements made by other people. I think we're not, but I don't know whether either mplayer developers or debian developers can convince a ftpmaster (which is where this tab stops) about this issue, or we have to wait for a legal brain to comment. [unclear description] > 1) It implies that MPlayer contains DeCSS, which it does not. MPlayer >contains libdvdcss. I think that's a new one to me and I accept the correction entirely. [...] > 2) It suggests that libdvdread is a replacement for libdvdcss, which it >is not. Only if you view the text at a particular angle. That's why I call it accurate but unclear. I'll update it later. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
MJ Ray wrote: > I'm not quite sure what sort of statement about patents will > convince ftpmasters. Maybe knowing what patents held by who are > definitely infringed by mplayer is good, especially if none of > them are actively enforced, or maybe it is bad. This seems like a potentially bad idea, actually. I certainly can't cite specific laws, but I seem to recall from similar discussions that if a patent holder can prove a patent was violated in full knowledge of the violation, he is entitled to triple damages. In the course of researching patents possibly violated by MPlayer, one would surely uncover the presence of the same patents in code already in Debian -- the already-mentioned Xine, Avifile, etc. regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Physics Department WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/Princeton University GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 Princeton, NJ 08544 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:34:39AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:34:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Bugs in some package already in debian doesn't let another package > > > with those bugs in as a right, though. It just means we have bugs > > > to deal with. > > Yes. Still Debian's position needs to be consistent and credible as > > well. If MPlayer has problem X and therefore cannot enter Debian, then > > the other multimedia players sharing problem X would have to be removed, > > wouldn't they? > > The other multimedia players should have a bug of the appropriate > severity reported to them. I'd expect anything serious enough to > keep MPlayer out would cause them to be removed from a release, > or maybe even the archive entirely. OK. > > > or maybe nothing mplayer team will be good enough and > > > we need to get a lawyerly opinion. > > Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, could you please clarify? > > Sorry, I seem to have missed words. Should read "maybe nothing > the mplayer team can say will be good enough". I surely hope we're not at the point where constructive dialog has become impossible. I ask all of you to judge my words on their merit and not past statements made by other people. > > MPlayer includes both libdvdcss and libdvdread in the libmpdvdkit2 > > directory. IIRC Andrea removed it and decided to link to the Debian > > libdvdread dynamically. > > I think my summary is accurate but unclear. I'll improve it later. I beg to differ. The sentence DeCSS code: removed and mplayer-debian uses libdvdread3 instead has two problems: 1) It implies that MPlayer contains DeCSS, which it does not. MPlayer contains libdvdcss. DeCSS and libdvdcss are not the same. DeCSS is based on a key that was leaked to the internet, while libdvdcss basically bruteforces the weak CSS encryption. DeCSS has been the subject of several lawsuits (which were all won by the forces of light), while libdvdcss has never had any legal troubles. 2) It suggests that libdvdread is a replacement for libdvdcss, which it is not. libdvdread provides access to the different types of information stored throughout a DVD, it's essential for any kind of DVD playback. libdvdcss decrypts CSS, it's only necessary for playing encrypted DVDs. Sorry, I really do not want to sound argumentative. It's just that I encounter these misconceptions all the time when I talk to people about the situation of Debian and MPlayer. I have to clarify these two points constantly, that's why I am insisting here. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:34:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > > Bugs in some package already in debian doesn't let another package > > with those bugs in as a right, though. It just means we have bugs > > to deal with. > Yes. Still Debian's position needs to be consistent and credible as > well. If MPlayer has problem X and therefore cannot enter Debian, then > the other multimedia players sharing problem X would have to be removed, > wouldn't they? The other multimedia players should have a bug of the appropriate severity reported to them. I'd expect anything serious enough to keep MPlayer out would cause them to be removed from a release, or maybe even the archive entirely. [...] > > or maybe nothing mplayer team will be good enough and > > we need to get a lawyerly opinion. > Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, could you please clarify? Sorry, I seem to have missed words. Should read "maybe nothing the mplayer team can say will be good enough". [...] > MPlayer includes both libdvdcss and libdvdread in the libmpdvdkit2 > directory. IIRC Andrea removed it and decided to link to the Debian > libdvdread dynamically. I think my summary is accurate but unclear. I'll improve it later. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:34:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but as outlined below, it's not different from other multimedia > > players wrt patents. > > Bugs in some package already in debian doesn't let another package > with those bugs in as a right, though. It just means we have bugs > to deal with. Yes. Still Debian's position needs to be consistent and credible as well. If MPlayer has problem X and therefore cannot enter Debian, then the other multimedia players sharing problem X would have to be removed, wouldn't they? > I'm not quite sure what sort of statement about patents will > convince ftpmasters. Maybe knowing what patents held by who are > definitely infringed by mplayer is good, especially if none of > them are actively enforced, or maybe it is bad. Maybe just > knowing that no mplayer distributors are currently threatened > is enough, No MPlayer distributors are currently threatened, nor have they been in the past. > or maybe nothing mplayer team will be good enough and > we need to get a lawyerly opinion. Sorry, I don't understand this sentence, could you please clarify? > I hate software patents too. We all do *sigh*. > > > My summary of the issue is http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer > > Nice summary. One point is not fully correct, though: > > 2. DeCSS code: removed and mplayer-debian uses libdvdread3 instead > > libdvdread is not a replacement for libdvdcss. Instead of using the builtin > > libdvdcss the Debian package dynamically loads a libdvdcss that might be > > present on the system in question. > > So libdvdread3 is used anyway, or have I misunderstood? MPlayer includes both libdvdcss and libdvdread in the libmpdvdkit2 directory. IIRC Andrea removed it and decided to link to the Debian libdvdread dynamically. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but as outlined below, it's not different from other multimedia > players wrt patents. Bugs in some package already in debian doesn't let another package with those bugs in as a right, though. It just means we have bugs to deal with. I'm not quite sure what sort of statement about patents will convince ftpmasters. Maybe knowing what patents held by who are definitely infringed by mplayer is good, especially if none of them are actively enforced, or maybe it is bad. Maybe just knowing that no mplayer distributors are currently threatened is enough, or maybe nothing mplayer team will be good enough and we need to get a lawyerly opinion. I hate software patents too. > > My summary of the issue is http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer > Nice summary. One point is not fully correct, though: > 2. DeCSS code: removed and mplayer-debian uses libdvdread3 instead > libdvdread is not a replacement for libdvdcss. Instead of using the builtin > libdvdcss the Debian package dynamically loads a libdvdcss that might be > present on the system in question. So libdvdread3 is used anyway, or have I misunderstood? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:42:08AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I was told that it is now up to the FTP masters to review the package > > and admit it into the distribution. I was also told that these people > > are worried that MPlayer might infringe upon software patents. [...] > > ..might infringe upon patents that will cause problems for debian, > in particular. Yes, but as outlined below, it's not different from other multimedia players wrt patents. > I understand it was sort-of on hold because it was too late for > the sarge freeze already. Maybe we can move on now and get it > into etch. That would be great. I'm here to assist this process. If I can help in any way by answering questions or making changes to MPlayer, I intend to do so. > > But at the same time MPlayer is not special in the sense that it is just > > another multimedia player and very similar to VLC[4], xine[5], avifile[6], > > ogle[7] or FFmpeg[8] and many others, all of which are already a part of > > Debian. These players differ in their feature set somewhat, but MPlayer > > does nothing that several of the others will not do as well. Thus there > > is no reason to treat MPlayer differently, all players are affected > > equally by patents. > > I'd be surprised if mplayer breaks any new patents for debian. It does not. > My summary of the issue is http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer Nice summary. One point is not fully correct, though: 2. DeCSS code: removed and mplayer-debian uses libdvdread3 instead libdvdread is not a replacement for libdvdcss. Instead of using the builtin libdvdcss the Debian package dynamically loads a libdvdcss that might be present on the system in question. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MPlayer revisited
Diego Biurrun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was told that it is now up to the FTP masters to review the package > and admit it into the distribution. I was also told that these people > are worried that MPlayer might infringe upon software patents. [...] ..might infringe upon patents that will cause problems for debian, in particular. I understand it was sort-of on hold because it was too late for the sarge freeze already. Maybe we can move on now and get it into etch. > But at the same time MPlayer is not special in the sense that it is just > another multimedia player and very similar to VLC[4], xine[5], avifile[6], > ogle[7] or FFmpeg[8] and many others, all of which are already a part of > Debian. These players differ in their feature set somewhat, but MPlayer > does nothing that several of the others will not do as well. Thus there > is no reason to treat MPlayer differently, all players are affected > equally by patents. I'd be surprised if mplayer breaks any new patents for debian. My summary of the issue is http://people.debian.org/~mjr/mplayer -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MPlayer revisited
Greetings! Somewhat over a year ago I started a thread [1] about MPlayer on this mailing list in order to resolve the endless history of conflicts between the MPlayer and Debian projects and eventually get MPlayer included in Debian. The last remaining issue was deemed to be the lack of proper modification notices in the spirit of GPL §2a. Some files we include from external sources were missing them. This has now been resolved. Shortly before the 1.0pre7 release [2] I ran through the source tree and added notices similar to the following one Modified for use with MPlayer, changes contained in libdvdread_changes.diff. detailed CVS changelog at http://www.mplayerhq.hu/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/main/ $Id: dvd_reader.c,v 1.14 2005/05/25 08:48:32 diego Exp $ as suggested back then by the members of this mailing list. This is supposedly the last issue keeping MPlayer from entering Debian. If there is something I have overlooked, please let me know, I will fix it. Should there be need for clarification of any kind, please ask, I will do my best to answer. MPlayer includes libdvdcss for CSS decryption, but the package that was uploaded for inclusion in Debian does not. Furthermore the MPlayer project provides MEncoder, a movie encoder, but this is not being packaged. So neither should be a problem. I was told that it is now up to the FTP masters to review the package and admit it into the distribution. I was also told that these people are worried that MPlayer might infringe upon software patents. Claiming that it does not would be dishonest for several reasons. MPlayer contains more than half a million lines of code. In the present day and age where progress bars are not only patentable but patented and thousands upon thousands of frivolous and trivial patents have already been granted anything beyond the complexity of "Hello World!" infringes software patents. Unfortunately the multimedia arena is filled with software patents, prompting the FFII to call the situation a patent thicket[3] and Red Hat to drop almost all multimedia support from their distribution. But at the same time MPlayer is not special in the sense that it is just another multimedia player and very similar to VLC[4], xine[5], avifile[6], ogle[7] or FFmpeg[8] and many others, all of which are already a part of Debian. These players differ in their feature set somewhat, but MPlayer does nothing that several of the others will not do as well. Thus there is no reason to treat MPlayer differently, all players are affected equally by patents. To clarify: My intention is not to start a flamewar nor to pressure anybody. There is a lot of confusion surrounding MPlayer that I wish to clear up in order to pave the way for MPlayer to enter Debian. friendly regards Diego [1] MPlayer reloaded: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00235.html [2] MPlayer 1.0pre7 was released on 2005-04-16. [3] FFII initiates research on the MPEG-LA Patent Thicket http://wiki.ffii.org/Mpegla05En [4] http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/vlc [5] http://packages.debian.org/stable/libs/libxine1 [6] http://packages.debian.org/unstable/graphics/avifile-player [7] http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/ogle [8] http://packages.debian.org/stable/graphics/ffmpeg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
