Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-29 Thread Andrea Mennucc
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-29 Thread Glenn Maynard
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-16 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-16 Thread Michael K. Edwards
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-15 Thread Andrew Suffield
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-15 Thread Dariush Pietrzak
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-15 Thread Diego Biurrun
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* 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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-14 Thread Diego Biurrun
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,

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-13 Thread Sean Kellogg
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-12 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-12 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-12 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-10 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-10 Thread Diego Biurrun
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

Re: MPlayer revisited

2005-06-10 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
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. ObligatoryIAmNotALawyerDisclosure / This