Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard wrote: So this is not a problem - again. (I've had enough of Gabucino. Re-plonk.) Please no flames. If you think I'm wrong in something, please point me to the facts. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpPT9Lajhrv8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Gabucino wrote: I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into Debian. Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them - the purpose this list exists for. The following issues' discussion has started so far: - libavcodec's possible patent infringements: even if they do exist, xine (which contains this library) was let into debian main. - ASF patent: it seems there is an agreement that there is no reason to fear Microsoft on this part. However - of course - I don't want to say the final word; this is just my understatement so far. - Win32 DLLs: current linux media players (including MPlayer) are more than able to live without them. While these topics can be important, I'd like if somebody would address my original concerns too. Thank you. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpuEHO3p8Li9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 19:26, Gabucino wrote: Don Armstrong wrote: d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know what exactly you wish for), All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and probably for any other GPLed libraries which you've included and modified from various sources in mplayer.] So is there anybody who wants to do this? What about... You ? That is supposed to be an upstream duty... Mike
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Thursday 09 October 2003 14:24, Gabucino wrote: Gabucino wrote: I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into Debian. Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them - the purpose this list exists for. The following issues' discussion has started so far: - libavcodec's possible patent infringements: even if they do exist, xine (which contains this library) was let into debian main. - ASF patent: it seems there is an agreement that there is no reason to fear Microsoft on this part. However - of course - I don't want to say the final word; this is just my understatement so far. - Win32 DLLs: current linux media players (including MPlayer) are more than able to live without them. You forgot the non-respect of the license of the libraries included in mplayer (you know, the thing having been brought in another branch of this thread). Mike -- I have sampled every language, french is my favorite. Fantastic language, especially to curse with. Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère. It's like wiping your ass with silk! I love it. -- The Merovingian, in the Matrix Reloaded
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to fall under the spirit of the if you change it, don't call it foo allowances. We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so. Agreed.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Mike Hommey wrote: You forgot the non-respect of the license of the libraries included in mplayer (you know, the thing having been brought in another branch of this thread). I've checked the thread, but must have skimmed over it. Which is the library in question? -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgplb6f79ZEyB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 20:53 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. With the number of software patents out there, if the goal is not to break the law (instead of not to be sued), I suggest the following command on master: # rm -Rf / If the patent is actively being enforced, we should certainly not distribute something that violates it. Otherwise, we tend to just ignore the patent.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the infringing. So what? We have an existing policy. You've lost me here. I have no clue what our policy has to do with the legality/illegality of patent infringing... It was already explained. Unless we have a particular reason to fear an enforcement action, we don't fret about patents. We know many many companies (IBM, for example) that have large war-chests of software patents, but say they won't enforce them against anyone who doesn't try to enforce one on them. This is the unofficial policy of many more patent holders. So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to worry. Thomas
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to worry. Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing a patent which was what I was discussing. Don Armstrong -- I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was: We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel. -- Cory Doctorow http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit : We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Anyway, after all successive problems we encountered with mplayer, the maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. You can call this discrimination, I will call this careful attention towards some people who already proved to be incompetent regarding legal issues. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette wrote: If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. lol. Why is it stripped? It's done with the binary DLL. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Of course, if they are the favored side. maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. What about innocent until guilty ? Show me the nonfree part of MPlayer. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgp0GkzNSdd1C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Should this perhaps be mentioned in the package description? In http://packages.debian.org/unstable/graphics/xine-ui.html there is no mention of WMV, but there is a link to http://xine.sf.net/ for a more complete list of supported audio/video formats, and http://xine.sf.net/ says that xine decodes WMV. I'm not saying you should write Don't bother getting this crippled Debian package; get the upstream source instead, but I think it's only fair to tell people if functionality has been stripped off. You could include a link to freepatents.org by way of explanation.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté : Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit : We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. Another issue is that the xine authors have always been cooperative instead of ranting about this and that. Anyway, after all successive problems we encountered with mplayer, the maintainer will have a hard time convincing the ftpmasters that his package is 100 % free software, and free of patent issues. You can call this discrimination, I will call this careful attention towards some people who already proved to be incompetent regarding legal issues. While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like any other project. While mplayer must be checked carefully, if mplayer is currently DFSG-compliant, it should not be complicated to convince ftpmaster to let Debian users having mplayer. The historical account of the mplayer team should not cause rejection of mplayer. Regards, -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 10:35, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit : If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g. xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it. Should this perhaps be mentioned in the package description? In http://packages.debian.org/unstable/graphics/xine-ui.html there is no mention of WMV, but there is a link to http://xine.sf.net/ for a more complete list of supported audio/video formats, and http://xine.sf.net/ says that xine decodes WMV. It does decode WMV8. As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's, but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Op wo 08-10-2003, om 02:53 schreef Brian T. Sniffen: Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn Maynard wrote: One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have fallen off the site. There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. In theory, yes. However, in practice, when dealing with patents, I suggest you do pursue just that 'not getting sued' goal; since literally everything computer-related is patented, there's no other way. If you've found a violation of the DFSG in xine, please file a serious bug against xine-ui or libxine1, as appropriate. The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything about patents, only about licenses). -- Wouter Verhelst Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org If you're running Microsoft Windows, either scan your computer on viruses, or stop wasting my bandwith and remove me from your addressbook. *now*.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On 2003-10-08, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent as enforced. Alternatively, does anyone think there's a chance Microsoft would be willing to state they would not enforce the patent against us? I believe they want this format to be more widely used, no? What if Microsoft publically states that they would enforce the patent against Windows players, but not against Linux players? Peace, Dylan
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to worry. Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing a patent which was what I was discussing. It's also an overstatement to say that any legal patent violation is illegal. First, it's important to distinguish crimes and civil violations. But beyond that, it's also important to know that a consented-to violation, even implicitly consented-to, is not illegal.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Josselin Mouette wrote: As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's, but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer. Then let's make it clear. - is xine's win32dll loader modified to deny loading WMV9 dlls or - just DLLs aren't distributed -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpG1k3IqPShP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:36:23AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything about patents, only about licenses). License is relevant to both patents and copyrights. If software is affected by an enforced patent, and a license to that patent is not granted, the work is non-free. More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law, then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright. For example, if the Official Use Logo was placed under a permissive copyright license, but maintained strict restrictions under trademark law, then the freedoms required by the DFSG are not available--it would still not be DFSG-free. Using laws other than copyright to restrict freedom is not a loophole to main. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote: Then let's make it clear. - is xine's win32dll loader modified to deny loading WMV9 dlls or - just DLLs aren't distributed Since MS doesn't appear to be suing anyone nowdays[1] for patent violations while causing DLLs to be loaded, we've never had a problem with programs that load them. (wine, FE, does this.) However, since they're generally not free software, nor (for the most part) are the even legal to (re-)distribute, we don't distribute them in Debian. (I'd strongly recommend that mplayer take a strong look at the DLL licenses if mplayer is distributing them.) Don Armstrong 1: If they ever were in the past... -- Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee -- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law, then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright. For example, if the Official Use Logo was placed under a permissive copyright license, but maintained strict restrictions under trademark law, then the freedoms required by the DFSG are not available--it would still not be DFSG-free. Actually, I believe it still would be DFSG-free. You are right in general that it doesn't matter which law is being used to impinge freedom. But a free Official Use Logo could (I think) be written in such a way as to be clearly DFSG-free, given that we already allow labelling and naming restrictions. So we can permit people to modify the bottle, but still not use it for non-Official things, and that doesn't imping freedom, just as people can use and modify the special code for the TeX logo, but they can't apply it to anything that doesn't pass Trip. Thomas
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 02:16:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Actually, I believe it still would be DFSG-free. You are right in general that it doesn't matter which law is being used to impinge freedom. But a free Official Use Logo could (I think) be written in such a way as to be clearly DFSG-free, given that we already allow labelling and naming restrictions. So we can permit people to modify the bottle, but still not use it for non-Official things, and that doesn't imping freedom, just as people can use and modify the special code for the TeX logo, but they can't apply it to anything that doesn't pass Trip. The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to fall under the spirit of the if you change it, don't call it foo allowances. We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong wrote: However, since they're generally not free software, nor (for the most part) are the even legal to (re-)distribute, we don't distribute them in Debian. (I'd strongly recommend that mplayer take a strong look at the DLL licenses if mplayer is distributing them.) We don't care of Win32 DLLs, because - contrary to the popular belief - they aren't useful anymore: libavcodec can decode _every_ popular format, except the WMV9 codec, but that's only a matter of time. Personally I use only one Win32 DLL, and only for nvidia_vid debugging purposes. So this is not a problem - again. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpW8cvMQgN1O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:42:30AM +0200, Gabucino wrote: So this is not a problem - again. And you're being rudely dismissive - again. Stop acting as if mplayer has never had licensing problems - again - and as if being careful of licensing problems is a waste of time - again. Debian folks are extending infinite patience, and in response you have been consistently impatient, rude, and now you're pretending you're being persecuted. If your goal is really to get mplayer into Debian, your attitude is unhelpful. All it buys you is flamewars and killfiles. (I've had enough of Gabucino. Re-plonk.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:21:14AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote: While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like any other project. While mplayer must be checked carefully, if mplayer is currently DFSG-compliant, it should not be complicated to convince ftpmaster to let Debian users having mplayer. The historical account of the mplayer team should not cause rejection of mplayer. Of course it should. See other messages I've posted about relying upon upstream authors having done their homework so we can have a reasonable and good-faith belief that the copyright and legal notices in a work submitted to Debian are accurate. With MPlayer, we have reason to lack such confidence. The license vetting done by -legal and the Debian archive administrators is contextual and will always have to be. The context of our experiences with MPlayer do not inspire much faith in the representations of Gabucino regarding the license status of various code distributed by the MPlayer organization. -- G. Branden Robinson| Eternal vigilance is the price of Debian GNU/Linux | liberty. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Wendell Phillips http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong wrote: The most recent discussion is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01633.html Thanks, I've read all the related threads. It occurs to me that there were three issues brought up: - marking the changes made on imported libraries. This would currently include: libfaad2, libmpflac, libmpdvdkit2, libmpeg2. Let me clarify the situation. a, libfaad2 was commited to CVS because enermous amount of users wasn't able to either install libfaad and libfaad-dev, or read the MPlayer documentation about where to download libfaad sources. Effect: we received too much mails complaining about I can't hear anything in the new Matrix trailer etc. The decision was made to include libfaad2. Of course, MPlayer can be easily compiled with external libfaad dependency, and the internal one can be wiped out with a simple rm -rf libfaad2. Probably this is how it should be in Debian - thus this is not an issue. b, libmpflac has been introduced recently, because of the original library's idiotic libsndfile dependency. MPlayer is totally compilable without this, again, it's just an rm -rf. Probably this is how it should be in Debian - thus this is not an issue. c, libmpdvdkit2 is included so we have more area to make changes instead of sending patches back to its authors. MPlayer can be compiled with external libdvdread (and _optionally_ libdvdcss), just again: rm -rf libmpdvdkit2 Probably this is how it should be in Debian - thus this is not an issue. d, libmpeg2 is - of course - mandatory in MPlayer. It is developed by Michael Walken LESPINASSE, who we were always working closely with. We - the core developers - do not intend to waste time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know what exactly you wish for), but if Andrea is willing to do this research, we'll most likely accept the patch. If any questions arise while this research goes on, I'll try to get answers to them. - another concern was the usage of statically linked libdvdcss. I've answered this above (it's deletable). - Sam Hocevar raised a concern about libavcodec. I do not intend to answer this, since xine was allowed into Debian with a full, included libavcodec. By the way, MPlayer also contains a LICENSE file, which - AFAIK - negliges the neccessity of GPL header inclusion in each of the source files. Any more concerns? -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpxE8y1YS3op.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Gabucino wrote: - Sam Hocevar raised a concern about libavcodec. I do not intend to answer this, since xine was allowed into Debian with a full, included libavcodec. Sorry, that doesn't work. If the library has problems, it has problems regardless of whether it was previously allowed into the archive or not. If problems are found, then they certainly must be fixed in any existing packages, but the need to answer these questions does not go away simply because of previous accidents. Xine's copy of libavcodec appears to include MPEG-2 video and MPEG-1 Layer 3 audio encoding. That may be moot if the code is never actually used, but encoders are explicitly enabled by -DCONFIG_ENCODERS, so this may not be the case. (It's probably a good idea to disable those anyway, though.) The only decoding issue I've heard of affects the ASF container format, but that'd be in libavformat, not libavcodec. (They tend to go together, but it isn't used by xine.) Oops. Looks like Xine has ASF support elsewhere, which is a problem. I don't have an X machine to test whether this is really enabled in the package or disabled in some place I'm not noticing; I'd appreciate it if someone would check this. Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't wish to); I'm only going from what I've heard: TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 issues, MP3 encoding issues are well-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues. (These are all issues of patents that have been actively enforced, at least in the past.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote: - marking the changes made on imported libraries. This would currently include: libfaad2, libmpflac, libmpdvdkit2, libmpeg2. Let me clarify the situation. [SNIP -- These all seem to be packaging considerations and as such are orthogonal to the legal ramifications of mplayer.] d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know what exactly you wish for), All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and probably for any other GPLed libraries which you've included and modified from various sources in mplayer.] GPL 2a for reference: a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. By the way, MPlayer also contains a LICENSE file, which - AFAIK - negliges the neccessity of GPL header inclusion in each of the source files. It actually doesn't. You should include the copyright information in each of the files, and you must in cases where mplayer doesn't hold the copyright. [It's just a good practice as well, because it makes it clear where your code came from and how it is licensed if it ever is separated from the codebase -- which is usefull in case someone wants to fork mplayer or use sections of it in another program.] Don Armstrong -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard wrote: Sorry, that doesn't work. If the library has problems, it has problems regardless of whether it was previously allowed into the archive or not. Yes, someone here told you'd (all) be looking into xine's libavcodec issues. More than a half year has passed, and nothing happened. So I continue to disregard this matter. Xine's copy of libavcodec appears to include MPEG-2 video and MPEG-1 Layer 3 audio encoding. That may be moot if the code is never actually used, but encoders are explicitly enabled by -DCONFIG_ENCODERS, so this may not be the case. (It's probably a good idea to disable those anyway, though.) Huh? Why does xine use -DCONFIG_ENCODERS ? It can't even encode. And if you don't ship mencoder (that we can live with), you'll also don't have to define that. So this matter is (yet again) no problem. Oops. Looks like Xine has ASF support elsewhere, which is a problem. So? Is it going to be removed? If no, I continue to fail to see this as a showstopper. don't have an X machine to test whether this is really enabled in the package or disabled in some place I'm not noticing; I'd appreciate it if someone would check this. There is an aaxine version of xine. and VirtualDub had ASF issues. We won't agree to remove ASF support. It would be a most serious crippling. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpRhLgxIfA9w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong wrote: d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know what exactly you wish for), All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and probably for any other GPLed libraries which you've included and modified from various sources in mplayer.] So is there anybody who wants to do this? -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpta26wvwLAO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote: Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't wish to); I'm only going from what I've heard: TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 issues, MP3 encoding issues are well-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues. (These are all issues of patents that have been actively enforced, at least in the past.) I am looking for examples of such enforcements, do you have any pointers by chance? Regards, -- Sam.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Bcc to Avery Lee (phaeron at virtualdub dot org); I don't want to stick his address in the archives for harvesting without his permission. On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote: Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't wish to); I'm only going from what I've heard: TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 issues, MP3 encoding issues are well-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues. (These are all issues of patents that have been actively enforced, at least in the past.) I am looking for examples of such enforcements, do you have any pointers by chance? One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have fallen off the site. Avery, we're discussing the current ASF support in Xine and Mplayer and possible patent issues. Could you confirm that ASF-related patents have been enforced in the past? TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 encoding issues back (reading the changelog) around Dec 12. I can't find many details, but http://www.tmpgenc.net/e_contact.html says Because of MPEG-2 licensing matter, we are not able to provide unlimited MPEG-2 encoding function for free, thus, TMPGEnc (which you can download from this website) has limited MPEG-2 encoding function because it is free. I recall that being a patent issue, but can't find anything more specific. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:24:06PM +0200, Gabucino wrote: Yes, someone here told you'd (all) be looking into xine's libavcodec issues. More than a half year has passed, and nothing happened. So I continue to disregard this matter. The only mention of libavcodec being in main that I've seen is Sam's post, and that was to debian-devel, which is the wrong place. Now that it's been raised on debian-legal, it can be discussed. Xine's copy of libavcodec appears to include MPEG-2 video and MPEG-1 Layer 3 audio encoding. That may be moot if the code is never actually used, but encoders are explicitly enabled by -DCONFIG_ENCODERS, so this may not be the case. (It's probably a good idea to disable those anyway, though.) Huh? Why does xine use -DCONFIG_ENCODERS ? It can't even encode. Don't ask me, ask the maintainers of Xine. Oops. Looks like Xine has ASF support elsewhere, which is a problem. So? Is it going to be removed? If no, I continue to fail to see this as a showstopper. Wow. You're certainly impatient. Here's a clue: we've just begun discussing this. Legal issues are not typically resolved in a day. don't have an X machine to test whether this is really enabled in the package or disabled in some place I'm not noticing; I'd appreciate it if someone would check this. There is an aaxine version of xine. Okay, I can confirm that Debian's Xine has ASF installed. and VirtualDub had ASF issues. We won't agree to remove ASF support. It would be a most serious crippling. Which features will be disabled to permit safe distribution in Debian is ultimately not your decision. This attitude (forget the legal issues, we need this feature!) is precisely why Debian is so hesitant to go near mplayer. -- Glenn Maynard
[phaeron@virtualdub.org: Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status]
Here's Avery Lee's response: I do not know of an actual instance in which the ASF patent was enforced. What happened was that I received a phone call from member of the Windows Media team informing me that my ASF code was illegal, despite being constructed from scratch via data reverse engineering. I never received a formal notice from Microsoft Legal, and my requests for specifices went unanswered. Once someone uncovered the patent, however, it was a moot point. The patent is *snip* (I've edited out some specifics on the patent, to avoid spreading liability; if anyone wants the original, unedited message, mail me and I'll forward it in private.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard wrote: One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have fallen off the site. There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgp5LY9GP4zWO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Glenn Maynard wrote: Huh? Why does xine use -DCONFIG_ENCODERS ? It can't even encode. Don't ask me, ask the maintainers of Xine. I'd rather ask the .deb packager(s), because that is our current subject. Oops. Looks like Xine has ASF support elsewhere, which is a problem. So? Is it going to be removed? If no, I continue to fail to see this as a showstopper. Wow. You're certainly impatient. Here's a clue: we've just begun discussing this. Legal issues are not typically resolved in a day. This is nearly the exact wording that I received a year (?) ago. There is an aaxine version of xine. Okay, I can confirm that Debian's Xine has ASF installed. Uh-huh.. and VirtualDub had ASF issues. We won't agree to remove ASF support. It would be a most serious crippling. Which features will be disabled to permit safe distribution in Debian is ultimately not your decision. That is true. But one thing is certain. We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant part of the streaming media on the Internet). SuSE tried this road, and failed. They've removed their over-crippled MPlayer package 2 weeks ago. This attitude (forget the legal issues, we need this feature!) is precisely why Debian is so hesitant to go near mplayer. Debian actually forgets the legal issues in the case of xine (please don't argue, a year has passed since this argument of mine was raised first, and no effect to this very day), so *please* don't come with this line. I try my best to avoid another flamewar, but I need cooperation on your side. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpg8Z5MYyIeA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn Maynard wrote: One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have fallen off the site. There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. If you've found a violation of the DFSG in xine, please file a serious bug against xine-ui or libxine1, as appropriate. -Brian
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 20:53, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn't being enforced. -- Joe Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] My weblog doesn't detail my personal life: http://me.woot.net
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote: So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn't being enforced. Well, it is actually illegal, but if someone isn't enforcing it, you won't ever be sued for it.[1] The real issue here has to do with trebble damages and the knowing infringement of someone else's patent, which is (to put it bluntly) not good. Don Armstrong 1: It's kind of a no-brainer. If you're getting sued, they must be enforcing it. -- If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote: So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn't being enforced. Well, it is actually illegal, [...] It would be really nice to have references for those of us who haven't taken an IP law course. I don't think this one is obvious. -Billy
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:53:44PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Glenn Maynard wrote: One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly removed. That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have fallen off the site. There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. Disagree. We are generally aware that, given the state of the industry today, large sections of the Debian archive are infringing on one US software patent or another. Software patents are an illegitimate application of patent law, however; we should not unnecessarily legitimize them through our obeisance. The policy that maximizes our ability to achieve our goals is one which treats software patents as non-existent, *except* in cases where there is a clear danger of litigation. (In contrast, all software actively used today would still have been covered by copyright even under the earliest copyright policies in the US; so regardless of what else may be happening on the frontiers of copyright law, the copyrights governing the software in our archive are Constitutionally legitimate, and it's right that we should respect them.) I do not have a clear feeling yet on what this policy would dictate in the case of MPlayer, however. Certainly the threat level is higher than for most patent-infringing software in our archive, but I haven't decided if menacing phone calls from Microsoft developers trip my danger threshold here. I'm inclined to say that anyone who can't get their corporate lawyer to handle such legal relations matters isn't serious. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:53:44PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on Linux market, as far as I know. That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law. Patents are handled pragmatically: if a patent isn't shown to actually be enforced, we ignore it. Otherwise, we'd be lucky to keep hello world in the archive. ... but they don't enforce it against Linux users is a bad idea, though. Any form of enforcement indicates a hostile patent owner. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:15:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote: So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn't being enforced. Well, it is actually illegal, but if someone isn't enforcing it, you won't ever be sued for it.[1] The real issue here has to do with trebble damages and the knowing infringement of someone else's patent, which is (to put it bluntly) not good. Last I'd heard, knowing infringement in the US required the complicity of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer deemed qualified to judge for themselves whether a given usage is infringing. :P In which case, we know only that someone has *claimed* (out of court) that ASF is covered by Microsoft patents. I haven't seen any of the patents (and I'm not looking). You? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
[Billy: Sorry, meant for this to go to the list.] On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Billy Biggs wrote: Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Well, it is actually illegal, [...] It would be really nice to have references for those of us who haven't taken an IP law course. I don't think this one is obvious. Sure. It's USC Title 35 Section 271(a): (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.[1] Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the infringing. If you want to go much farther than that, you'll need to find an IP lawyer or someone who knows alot more about it than I do and prosecutes/defends these things on a daily basis. Don Armstrong 1: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/271.html 2: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/287.html -- Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien a ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien a retrancher. (Perfection is apparently not achieved when nothing more can be added, but when nothing else can be removed.) -- Antoine de Saint-Exupe'ry, Terres des Hommes http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Steve Langasek wrote: Last I'd heard, knowing infringement in the US required the complicity of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer deemed qualified to judge for themselves whether a given usage is infringing. Yeah... that or being told by a patent holder that you were infringing. Don Armstrong -- Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. -- Jeff Dege, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:52:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: Last I'd heard, knowing infringement in the US required the complicity of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer deemed qualified to judge for themselves whether a given usage is infringing. :P As I understand it (which may be incorrect), we're deemed capable of understand a patent and knowingly infringing upon it, but not capable of knowing if we're not infringing without a lawyer. That's how we end up in the situation that simply reading patents results in higher liability. Convenient arrangement. In which case, we know only that someone has *claimed* (out of court) that ASF is covered by Microsoft patents. I haven't seen any of the patents (and I'm not looking). You? In any case, it doesn't matter whether we know we're infringing or not; liability is only decreased if you're unknowing, not eliminated. I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent as enforced. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the infringing. So what? We have an existing policy. You've lost me here. I have no clue what our policy has to do with the legality/illegality of patent infringing... Don Armstrong -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the infringing. So what? We have an existing policy.
Re: MPlayer DFSG compatibility status
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote: I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into Debian. The most recent discussion is at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01633.html There were two issues that were still being looked at as far as -legal's concerns go (perhaps they've been fixed by now?) Then it needs to be looked at by ftp-master and approved or rejected. The developer who is currently heading up the effort (afaik) is Andrea Mennucc. Andrea ought to be able to fill you in further. Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
