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
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
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
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'
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[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.
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
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
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.
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.
I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into
Debian.
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
pgpYlbUv3yysv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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
50 matches
Mail list logo
