Yves Duret [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:14:19PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
Maybe make a bug and then we can vote on it?
it won't help.
[yves@rouge yves]$ rpmmon -p mplayer
g.rousse
By the way, i think nobody will vote for moving it to main.
We are only waiting
Es schrieb Warly:
Yves Duret [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:14:19PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
Maybe make a bug and then we can vote on it?
it won't help.
[yves@rouge yves]$ rpmmon -p mplayer
g.rousse
By the way, i think nobody will vote for moving it
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Thomas Rösch wrote:
you find License:
MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the
OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has
been removed.
So mplayer should be OK.
As Giuseppe said, the problem may go beyond a
Am Dienstag, 26. November 2002, 15:17:03 Uhr MET, schrieb Gwenole Beauchesne:
As Giuseppe said, the problem may go beyond a license issue. That is, for
instance an MPEG4 implementation, if they do provide support for such
format, may be covered by some patents.
Same as xine, which already is in
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 14:17, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Thomas Rösch wrote:
you find License:
MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the
OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has
been removed.
So mplayer
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:17:03PM +0100, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Thomas Rösch wrote:
you find License:
MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the
OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This has
been removed.
Are we really OK with the license and co ?
I heard that debian won't put it int their tree, because of the licence.
But, I do not exactlly where is the problem.
I will ask.
Mick
, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Cooker] mplayer in main ?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:17:03PM +0100, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Thomas Rösch wrote:
you find License:
MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the
OpenDivX project, which did
Scrive Gwenole Beauchesne [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Thomas Rösch wrote:
you find License:
MPlayer is GPL now. In the past it contained non-GPL code from the
OpenDivX project, which did not allow binary redistribution. This
has
been removed.
So mplayer should
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 04:50:20PM +0200, Faraj Meir wrote:
I don't now if it's true I think that it apply only for commercial.
Write directly to them ...
If it was totaly true so divx and divx stuff would not be here
yep License says[1] The license terms tie royalties for use only to MPEG-4
?
- Original Message -
From: Yves Duret [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Cooker] mplayer in main ?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:17:03PM +0100, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Thomas Rösch wrote:
you
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 15:51, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Of course in mind of the MPEG4 commitee there was to get royalties from
hardware makers (e.g. in embedded systems) not from free software writers...
Not entirely true. They certainly wanted to charge distributors of
commercial software that
Yep but Quicktime is commercial not mplayer
- Original Message -
From: Adam Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Cooker] mplayer in main ?
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 15:51, Giuseppe Ghibò wrote:
Of course in mind
but never says when you don't receives renumeration, it is free.
(but i am not law specialist)
[1]http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html
--
Yves Duret
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
piouk toujours et meme apres !
It seems to be implied...
The easiest way is to ask them directly
No
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Faraj Meir wrote:
Yep but Quicktime is commercial not mplayer
The licensing page doesn't say commercial. It says receives
renumeration for. Apple doesn't receive renumeration for most Quicktime
players. Most are free (as in beer) downloads.
It could
Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Faraj Meir wrote:
Yep but Quicktime is commercial not mplayer
The licensing page doesn't say commercial. It says receives
renumeration for. Apple doesn't receive renumeration for most Quicktime
players. Most are free (as in
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 01:32:04PM -0500, scott chevalley wrote:
I think you could argue the case that Mandrake is selling the physical
box and the support for that box, but that the software included is
(mostly) free, which is different from charging specifically for the
software itself.
Ben Reser wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Faraj Meir wrote:
Yep but Quicktime is commercial not mplayer
The licensing page doesn't say commercial. It says receives
renumeration for. Apple doesn't receive renumeration for most Quicktime
players. Most are free (as in beer)
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:41:42PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically correct package, for sure, but it is legaly
clean (otherwise it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yves Duret wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:41:42PM +0100, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:14:19PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
Maybe make a bug and then we can vote on it?
it won't help.
[yves@rouge yves]$ rpmmon -p mplayer
g.rousse
By the way, i think nobody will vote for moving it to main.
We are only waiting that warly moves it :)
--
Yves Duret
[EMAIL
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:28:54AM +0100, gabor wrote:
actually xine has a feature that mplayer lacks...
xine is available as a library ( libxine ), so there are some players
which are based on xine... for gnome ther's totem, for kde there is a
kde on ( try xine.sourceforge.net for a list
yep tell this for example for :
-browsers
-windows managers
-word processing
-text editors etc
no I really thing yoou roght drop all doublon .
Not I'm not serious .
the question is Why multimedia couldn't see the best linux media player in
the main choice ?
Xine does just about everything
Le Lundi 18 Novembre 2002 21:37, Faraj Meir a écrit :
yep tell this for example for :
-browsers
-windows managers
-word processing
-text editors etc
no I really thing yoou roght drop all doublon .
Not I'm not serious .
the question is Why multimedia couldn't see the best
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Florent BERANGER wrote:
Le Lundi 18 Novembre 2002 21:37, Faraj Meir a écrit :
yep tell this for example for :
-browsers
-windows managers
-word processing
-text editors etc
no I really thing yoou roght drop all doublon .
Not I'm not serious .
You have a lot of software that I thing can be dropped .
ask your user what they REALLY use for daily use ?
and drop to contrib anything that is not used and the thing wanted to main .
I think you will got only one CD this way ...
I think software strategy is an important thing and need a big
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 23:15, Faraj Meir wrote:
You have a lot of software that I thing can be dropped .
ask your user what they REALLY use for daily use ?
some people use xine daily, some use mplayer
some use gnome some use kde
bye,
gabor
and drop to contrib anything that is not used and
Hi.
On Mon 2002-11-18 at 08:42:57 +0100, Yves Duret wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:53:24PM +, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 12:41, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 01:06, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
Hi.
On Mon 2002-11-18 at 08:42:57 +0100, Yves Duret wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:53:24PM +, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 12:41, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer
Use Kxine, it uses the xine libs but the GUI is much more "media player"
like and it seems more stable than xine for some reason...
Cheers,
Jason
gabor wrote:
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 01:06, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
Hi.
On Mon 2002-11-18 at 08:42:57 +0100, Yves Duret wrote:
On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 01:38, Jason Greenwood wrote:
Use Kxine, it uses the xine libs but the GUI is much more media
player like and it seems more stable than xine for some reason...
mostly when i want to use xine ( i don't use it much, but still ) i use
totem... the only problem is that
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 21:58, Michal Bukovjan wrote:
- unlike Xine, I cannot recode subtitles on the fly (I am talking about
charsets). Thus, if I have subtitles in WIN1250 encoding, and want to
display them in ISO-8859-2 (Linux), no go.
mplayer -subcp cp1250
- neither allows me to
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 12:53:24PM +, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 12:41, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically correct
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically correct package, for sure, but it is legaly
clean (otherwise it won't even be in contrib), and its presence in main would
definitevely
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 13:41, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically correct package, for sure, but it is legaly
clean (otherwise it won't even be
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 12:41, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically correct package, for sure, but it is legaly
clean (otherwise it won't even be
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 13:53, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 12:41, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Now that i had some success with other transfer requests, what about the
ultimate multimedia player under linux, aka mplayer ?
It is not the most politically correct package, for
Xine does just about everything mplayer does...
I've tested xine on Mdk 9.0: in my opinion it's still slow to open a
fill, slow to navigate throw a video, and quite buggy. The configuration
menu is really horrible and very difficult to understand.
I really prefer MPlayer: fast, simple; it's far
On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 16:54, Stephane SOPPERA wrote:
Xine does just about everything mplayer does...
I've tested xine on Mdk 9.0: in my opinion it's still slow to open a
fill, slow to navigate throw a video, and quite buggy. The configuration
menu is really horrible and very difficult to
I've tested xine on Mdk 9.0: in my opinion it's still slow to open a
fill, slow to navigate throw a video, and quite buggy. The configuration
menu is really horrible and very difficult to understand.
I really prefer MPlayer: fast, simple; it's far better than every video
players that can
Stephane SOPPERA wrote:
Thirdly, mplayer has a great OSD ;-) (ok this one is not a very
objective argument ;-)
Hmm, not really that great :-(
- unlike Xine, I cannot recode subtitles on the fly (I am talking about
charsets). Thus, if I have subtitles in WIN1250 encoding, and want to
display
41 matches
Mail list logo
