On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:41:00PM +0100, Gabucino wrote:
> I think it is unfortunate to disable media playing by default in one of
> the biggest Linux distributions in 2003, just because maybe some patent
> holder _may_ come and sue. I do understand your viewpoint. I just don't
> agree with it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Hi, I just saw the www.MPlayerhq.hu front-page post and read the large
archive and debate on debian-devel and debian-legal.
That was hours of re
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
> (I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
> appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
> we don't have to worry about "legal issues" as much, being
> source-based, but I've been l
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
> minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
> still haven't been fixed.
Grr. Missing reference.
2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/ms
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
> > (I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
> > appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
>
> Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> can be made.
Is this particularly good advice? It's my understanding that the best
(onl
Le mer 29/01/2003 à 05:22, Seth Woolley a écrit :
> Nobody has provided that, and I'm here, doing my part to lobby for you
> guys to improve your selection. MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
> most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
> and it would be terrible
Don Armstrong wrote:
> There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer
> saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and
> patent issues.
That's fine to say, but if you let us know what they are, and we'll comment/fix
them.
So far there are libmpeg2 cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
> > most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
> > and it would be terrible not to include it because of personal issues.
>
> There
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> can be made.
In fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not
acti
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Is this particularly good advice?
Heh. It's not really even advice, since IANAL. I just think it's
something that we should be aware of.
> It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
> liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoi
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote:
> we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
> Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
> himself for his own code.
How can Debian be sure that that's the case? Debian (correctly) avoids
areas of questionable legali
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> it *will* be accepted. No matter how many stupid rants Gabucino can write
Huh? I am not against MPlayer being included into Debian.
> no matter how crappy the code is,
Uh.. MPlayer's code is crappy? Hm :)
> I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to
> charges of *willful* infringement,
That's true. I should probably have said information about patents
that are being actively prosecuted, but then again, if it's something
that (in
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
> MPlayer's website: "Also, why does debian-legal think they know what
> is GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors."
If you want or need this point clairified, I suggest you contact RMS
or an FSF representative. I believe it's fairly clea
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
> minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
> still haven't been fixed.
>
> Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a prob
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
> widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs.
Yes. A lot of people ignore (rightly or wrongly) 2c. Should Debian
ignore it? That's not for me to decide.
What concerned me was t
Don Armstrong wrote:
> > we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
> > Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
> > himself for his own code.
> How can Debian be sure that that's the case?
What do you need? A hand-written permission from Walken, photoc
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:33:31AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
> > liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about
> > potentially relevant patents entirely.
>
> AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote:
> > Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below?
So after looking, I find that lrmi.c is under this license:
Copyright (C) 1998 by Josh Vanderhoof
You are free to distribute and modify this file, as long as you do
not remove this copyright notice and
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> "Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from rea
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > "Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> > reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> > willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> > can be gain
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:40 pm, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
> of having patents in the first place?
Heh. The patent system has outlived its usefulness, yes. I believe that it
actually was still useful sometime around 1900 or
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 09:43, Seth Woolley wrote:
> All I see from you people is "he's a bad, bad boy" and nothing
> substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
>
> You guys blew the libmpeg2 "issue" way out of proportion, considering the
> libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing.
I haven't
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 09:53 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
From http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html:
"The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (effectively the final
word
on patent law, since the Supreme Court rarely takes patent cases) has
ruled that anyone who is not a patent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 09:43, Seth Woolley wrote:
> > All I see from you people is "he's a bad, bad boy" and nothing
> > substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
> >
> > You guys blew the libmpeg2 "is
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:42:23PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> It seems that what you are saying, then, is that we should completely
> ignore any patent
> issues until and unless we are prompted to do so by holders claiming
> that we are infringing.
I'm just quoting from an article I read, whi
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> > 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> > that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> > can be made.
>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from rea
Scripsit Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> /me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a
> possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list
> mail containing the word "patent" as spam and reject it...
> Am I joking? I'm not sure.
I think you are
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
> I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
> widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
> longer use
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have
to think about it. T
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> > (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
>
> That's news to me. I even
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote:
> But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway.
Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for
which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't
apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project
mo
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > "Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> > reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> > willful infringement
ts and the
truth.
> From: Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand
> video player for UN*X like systems
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Josselin Mouette wrot
36 matches
Mail list logo
