/* snip */
> >>contribs and sending out an e-mail? Also, what is the policy about where
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >/me thinks that you are talking about Vincent's rpmproc ...?
> >
>
>
> Ah... I believe that's it, but it's in contribs so I missed it. Is this
> generally used? If so why wouldn't it be in main?
>
I think that at least 2 people on this list are using it. It is useful
for letting developers know that someone has updated a package, be it
in the main distribution or contribs, and that it should be poked at, and
recompiled, and get into the mirrors.
But I don't know what is the usefulness of moving it to main, even if it
is a useful tool in the development process, because general users don't
need rpmproc. They just want a nice desktop and play Quake :)
>
>
>
> OpenDiVX or libcss? libcss may be legal in France, but if it's not legal
> in the US it certainly can't be mirrored. OpenDiVX may or may not be
> illegal (I've heard both), but the problem is OpenDiVX license forbids
> redistribution of modified code and fails to meet DFSG standards.
> However I have not found a way to separate this from mplayer. The
> debian-legal list has some info on this, but no clear answers.
>
libcss. I'm not sure what is the status on opendivx. But: if it does not
allow modification of sources then this is going to be bad. It's a wee bit
like qmail, certain folks say that it's good and that it's a rock, but since
it does not allow the modification of sources we've never gotten it into
the main distribution.
Anything that carries CSS support we have to compile --without-css, I know
this sucks, but at least you always have the source, even though I hate
to say that you must get the source and recompile in order to get that
support.
> Is mpeg also illegal? I know every other part of mplayer falls under the
> GPL, but mpeg is a patented technology. I know mpg123 is included, but
> can lame be included, and could mplayer if it uses libmpeg?
>
I'm not sure. But doesn't lame have problems because it involves encoding,
rather than decoding? Decoding is legal AFAIK, but I'm not a lawyer.
> This is all so hazy.
>
Yes. :(
> For the ones I'm sure are not illegal but, may not meet license
> guidelines, I can upload. But I don't even want to possess those which
> can be illegal. The problem is there's no clear answer as to what is and
> what isn't.
>
> There are some solutions, like provide a .spec for people somewhere.
> There's also the NoSource tag, or the conditionals supplied in rpm v4,
> that wouldn't compile in the proprietary stuff unless explicity told to
> do so with rpm --define.
>
For contribs or if we host a page where .spec can be downloaded because
we have trouble with the source, then that would be Ok. For main, then no,
because main should be compilable and usable by itself. Having a page
with .spec files of non-distributable packages for download has been talked
about before I believe, at least I think I remember someone asked for a jdk
spec ..
> I think I can at least upload a new libavifile. This is GPL and seems to
> be perfectly legal. At least this would give a starting point to some
> people.
>
Hold your horses... I'm not so sure. The avifile, or, at least the one
that is distributed with xmovie, has lame, which in turn, uhh, well, we know
what's wrong ... argh.
--
Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
李長風
http://www.wychk.org/~glee
$ /usr/games/fortune
Anything that can go wrong will go
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
$
