Re: Codec metapackages?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either category. Free could ship on the disks. Thoughts? -Cory \m/ Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is a lawyer no no. Luis -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- Luis de Bethencourt Guimerá luisbg [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: B0ED1326 -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Codec metapackages?
Luis de Bethencourt wrote: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either category. Free could ship on the disks. Thoughts? -Cory \m/ Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is a lawyer no no. Luis I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just wondering about the validity of the idea. -Cory \m/ -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Codec metapackages?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Cory K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Luis de Bethencourt wrote: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either category. Free could ship on the disks. Thoughts? -Cory \m/ Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is a lawyer no no. Luis I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just wondering about the validity of the idea. -Cory \m/ I havent said it is invalid, I'm discussing and asking about what I don't know. How many free codecs are there? The number is sadly very small compared to the encumbered and propietary license ones. How does Canonical legally give mp3 and mpeg decoders? Luis -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel -- Luis de Bethencourt Guimerá luisbg [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: B0ED1326 -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Codec metapackages?
Cory K. a écrit : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cory K. a écrit : Luis de Bethencourt wrote: On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either category. Free could ship on the disks. Thoughts? -Cory \m/ Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is a lawyer no no. Luis I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just wondering about the validity of the idea. -Cory \m/ Maybe this should be a package we can propose to the Medibuntu project. Thay already have a metapackage for the w32/w64/ppc codecs packages, wich choose the good codec package depending on your cpu kind. It should be possible to add a bigger list of package in this metapackage, I guess. Toine Please don't top-post. :) I wanna keep as many things in the repo as we can. So we'll look to the official repos 1st. -Cory \m/ Ok. But think that we already have alsa-firmware packages in Medibuntu. And this is a well maintained and used repository: there is libdvdcss, some restricted codecs, etc... It means users watching dvds on Ubuntu are aware of the Medibuntu Project. Maybe we could just add the medibuntu repository to the checkbox list in Synaptic, for Ubuntu Studio ?? then, considering it as an second kind of restricted repository, any user who wants to install all codecs, can do it more easy. Toine -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
