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 problem > can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems > lurking within the codebase.
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 the GPL on my own code, btw.) As an indicator of licensing irregularities it's pretty much useless. > Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible > inclusion in Debian will most likely have to: > > 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and > determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and > it's distributors to distribute. I haven't dug up the relevant history, but I gather that it had been claimed before that mplayer's copyright licenses were okay when they weren't. If this is indeed the case, then this is a reasonable requirement. > 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. I don't think that this is reasonable. Are you prepared to do the same for gcc? It's not possible to be sure that _any_ program is unencumbered by patents. We can only respond to patent threats as and when we become aware of them. Richard Braakman
