-----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 "issue" way out of proportion, considering the > > libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing. s/You guys/a guy/ my mistake. > > I haven't seen a statement from the libmpeg2 author in this whole thread > concerning his "in-ness" on "the whole thing". > There was a reply from the MPlayer author who wrote the libmpeg2 part. If you want something other than that, you can ask the libmpeg2 author yourself. It is on -devel. > Do you believe everything someone says on the Internet? No? Then why > should we? Why is it so offensive that we ask for proof? The only way you're getting proof besides a statement from them is to directly contact the libmpeg2 author. I think it's on track to be being included, so I don't really feel like adding much more to the discussion at this point. > > > Here's what you can do: > > > > "I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue..." > > > > So far, nobody's done this. > > Then you should rest easy, as it's very likely that such high-quality, > free, uncontroversial software will be a shoo-in for inclusion. I agree. I'm resting easy. > Indeed, > it would seem that someone is already hard at work to make this a > reality. If the legal situation with mplayer is as you say, then > "apt-get install mplayer" should be a reality in a jiffy. > > That is your goal, right? Or are you (and others) just interested in > slamming people when you say things like that? Is pointing out that there hasn't been a real issue demonstrated slamming people? Then I apologize. I don't want to slam people. I just couldn't find anywhere in all the responses why the MPlayer devs were being treated exclusively the way they were. The only successful point on-issue (there are a lot off-issue) was when the MPlayer devs pointed out the Xine unfair treatment. I don't care if the MPlayer devs are pissy at you. Perhaps I also unfairly grouped - -legal into a group when I shouldn't have. My want to have MPlayer included in THE major distro was emotional, and I cast the net a bit too wide. Apparently I made the same grouping mistake here too: http://www.alterslash.org/#MPlayer_Licence_Trouble_With_A_Twist As I think this will be resolved soon anyways, I'll try to avoid posting on-list anymore. Regards, Seth - -- Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+OIPY7fQ833vqzH0RAvwpAJ9jJoJkap29bVQWMHFjxuSTCiiXWwCgkWZH QUsfhAWNreMgElq5x8SNgtI= =1Twz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
