MJ Ray told me I never properly answered this question; sorry. Here is
my answer
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:08:42PM +0100, Sebastien NOEL wrote:
* You removed libmpdvdkit2/ because US laws suck.
Why don't you remove also libfaad2/ which is full of patents problems ?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 09:26:18PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Of course, how else are people going to notice all the contemptible things?
Given that there's an effectively infinite supply of worthless, useless
and irrelevant things to express contempt at, I'd guess that people will
never noti
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 05:43:11AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 10:15:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > What cause, exactly, do you think random snideness and derisiveness
> > > serves?
> >
> > I think it serves to deride things and indicate contempt of them.
>
> S
On Friday 25 February 2005 08:52 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the
> > sand in regard to patent violations saves you from increased liability?
>
> What would that achieve?
>
>
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 10:15:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > What cause, exactly, do you think random snideness and derisiveness
> > serves?
>
> I think it serves to deride things and indicate contempt of them.
So to you, derision is a goal in and of itself. That explains a lot.
Thanks.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 11:21:01AM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Friday 25 February 2005 02:10 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > I do. That barely scratched their "get-out-of-court-free" cash fund,
> > which they stoked up precisely so they can effectively ignore such
> > judgements; it numbers in t
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:14:47PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:10:47AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > We hate reading it, too.
>
> What cause, exactly, do you think random snideness and derisiveness
> serves?
I think it serves to deride things and indicate contempt
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the
> sand in regard to patent violations saves you from increased liability?
What would that achieve?
I don't think that we ignore patents because we believe that in doi
On Friday 25 February 2005 02:10 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I do. That barely scratched their "get-out-of-court-free" cash fund,
> which they stoked up precisely so they can effectively ignore such
> judgements; it numbers in the tens of billions in liquid capital. It
> certainly didn't hurt thei
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:10:47AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> We hate reading it, too.
What cause, exactly, do you think random snideness and derisiveness
serves?
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTE
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:26:53PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 24 February 2005 10:08 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > That's always a joke. These things are meaningless to big
> > corporations; patent penalties are just a slap on the wrist to
> > them. Their only significant application
On Thursday 24 February 2005 10:08 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> That's always a joke. These things are meaningless to big
> corporations; patent penalties are just a slap on the wrist to
> them. Their only significant application is when big corporations with
> big mobs of lawyers go after little g
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:55:19PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Doesn't sound like a particularilly compelling defense to me should you ever
> be sued for patent infringment... "No your honor, I wasn't aware of the
> specific patent number, only extensive media coverage, e-mail discussions,
> a
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:55:19PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> On Thursday 24 February 2005 09:08 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > (At least this particular case has a reasonably descriptive filename--I'm
> > probably not going to accidentally read a file named "patents.txt". Too
> > often, people st
On Thursday 24 February 2005 09:08 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> (At least this particular case has a reasonably descriptive filename--I'm
> probably not going to accidentally read a file named "patents.txt". Too
> often, people start talking about patent specifics in the middle of an
> email ...)
>
[First off, can you please not top post? The remaining vestiges of my
sanity thank you in advance.]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the
> sand in regard to patent violations saves you from increased
> liability?
The belief
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the sand in
> regard to patent violations saves you from increased liability? Yes, if you
> willfully violate a patent you CAN be order to pay trebble damages, but that
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 06:19:28AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
>
> > The more operative question is if we found the specification from
> > the patent file, copied it, and then benefited. As I doubt very
> > much any Free Softwar
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 08:52:12PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> The more operative question is if we found the specification from
> the patent file, copied it, and then benefited. As I doubt very
> much any Free Software developer has been grepping through the US
> Patent repository for ideas, th
Can this list PLEASE stop the belief that ducking your head in the sand in
regard to patent violations saves you from increased liability? Yes, if you
willfully violate a patent you CAN be order to pay trebble damages, but that
assumes that the patent infringer can show damages to be trippled i
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:08:42PM +0100, Sebastien NOEL wrote:
> * You removed libmpdvdkit2/ because US laws suck.
> Why don't you remove also libfaad2/ which is full of patents problems ?
> (according to /usr/share/doc/ffmpeg/patents.txt.gz)
I hope that isn't a file with descriptions o
hi
I have uploaded mplayer 1.0pre6a-3
It ships a correctly repackaged upstream source;
it has a 'debian/rules get-orig-source' (as asked in debian-devel)
that creates the .orig.tar.gz
It should appear in http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html
and in I will put a copy in
http://tonelli.sns
I am sorry : I see that some parts of my previous e-mail may sound
harsher than they intended to be
MJ Ray wrote:
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If mplayer is so free, so why is it so darn difficult to have it in
Debian???
[...]
I hope that's enough of a "why". I don't know if
MJ Ray wrote:
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ideally, mplayer should have entered Debian some two years ago. This is
not an ideal world. In this real world, mplayer is not in the archive,
and my first priority is getting it in there. [...]
OK, back to priority one: copyright-wise, y
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ideally, mplayer should have entered Debian some two years ago. This is
> not an ideal world. In this real world, mplayer is not in the archive,
> and my first priority is getting it in there. [...]
OK, back to priority one: copyright-wise, your package loo
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you should compare
> mplayer and the win32codecs.sh which installs win32codecs
> to
> libdvdread3 and the installer which installs libdvdcss2
I've explained why I think that is not a good comparison.
libdvdcss2 is not in the distribution because of fears tha
A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
>
>> If they are in the upstream sources and free enough for
>>us to ship in the source package, we should ship them in the source
>>package.
>>
>>
>>
>
> If mplayer is so free, so why is it so darn difficult to have it
> in Debian?
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now?
no way at all
Yes way. Look up the documentation of 'debian/rules get-orig-source'
in policy.
sorry
there was a deep misunderstanding here
I thought you meant: "
MJ Ray wrote:
Please don't cc me or send me HTML duplicates (see also debian lists
code of conduct). Thanks to Henning Makholm for replying already with
some answers I couldn't remember. I agree with all of that post.
Further, it looks like this doesn't need to be a native package.
a. wrote:
MJR
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, this looks like a different situation to win32codecs.sh to
> me. How does this downloader script differ from f-prot-installer
> in contrib? Both depend on some non-free software they download.
If it was packaged on its own, it'd go in contrib. However, it's
Please don't cc me or send me HTML duplicates (see also debian lists
code of conduct). Thanks to Henning Makholm for replying already with
some answers I couldn't remember. I agree with all of that post.
Further, it looks like this doesn't need to be a native package.
a. wrote:
> MJR wrote:
> >deb
Scripsit A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now?
> no way at all
Yes way. Look up the documentation of 'debian/rules get-orig-source'
in policy.
> suppose that I do this:
> $ tar xjf MPlayer-1.0pre6.tar.bz2
> $ mv MPlayer-1.0pre6 mplayer-1.0
sorry I sent this reply to the wrong list
I also add two missing answers
MJ Ray wrote:
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
namely version 1.0pre6-1
I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it
Ken Bloom wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:46:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: licenses
and copyrights.
Licenses:
the upstream code contains some code that is protected by (more or less)
actively enforced licenses: DeCSS code to decode encr
Ken Bloom wrote:
Solution:
the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian
What functionality do we lose by doing this?
--Ken Bloom
The ability to play any DVD you buy in a store?
It's the same functionality Xine loses; however, if mplayer uses
dvdread, it'll automatically use libdvdcss
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:46:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: licenses
> and copyrights.
>
> Licenses:
> the upstream code contains some code that is protected by (more or less)
> actively enforced licenses: DeCSS code to decode encrypted d
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
> namely version 1.0pre6-1
I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it.
Here are my first comments, split under your headings.
> --- HISTORY and CURRENT STATUS=20
The README.Debian refers
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:46 +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> (Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at
> http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html
It does show on the summary. Since there were previous mplayer packages
on NEW, it is listed inside the row of the first package timestamp
A Mennucc wrote:
> mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore
>
> sorry folks
>
> I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb
>
> it is also accessible at
> http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
>
> thanx emfox for pointing out
Given the acceptance of ffmpeg, I can
mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore
sorry folks
I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb
it is also accessible at
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
thanx emfox for pointing out
a.
--
Andrea Mennucc
"Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh att
hi
I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
namely version 1.0pre6-1
(Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at
http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html
but it is also accessible at
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
)
I REALLY think that the t
41 matches
Mail list logo
