>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote: >> > If you do want to include mplayer in your distro, how about releasing it >> > under another name than mplayer, so that the real and lovable mplayer >> > won't be mistaken for a cripled and unusable application? To quote Bruce >> > Perens explaining the 4. right of open source: "if you make a change, you >> > might have to change the name of the program or mark out your change very >> > clearly" >> >> If foolish tells me that's the best way to shut up people, >> then that may be done, especially when mplayer in Debian is not >> the same as what may be obtained from compiling upstream source. > >Actually this seems to be a nice and easy solution, but at the end >it is not. > >If I understand correctly the parts that are missing are the CSS library, >which definitely can not be distributed. > >Another topic is the ffmpeg part. I am asking myself how can it be >that we have a libxine package (a dynamic library) that >includes ffmpeg, but it is not possible to either package ffmpeg >nor to include it in mplayer ... > >I have to agree with sindre and the mplayer authors that removing >ffmpeg cripples mplayer. > >Anyhow, the question is not if Debian has mplayer or not, >the question is who decides what gets accepted, and why ? > >Is it just luck that xine is in Debian, or is there an explanation ?
Did anyone find out the answer to this? I suspect the place to search/ post is [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... just did some searching, and a good thread to start seems to be http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200310/msg00140.html - I'm starting to read up now, but it still doesn't look simple. Guess we'll have to wait and see. cheers zen
