On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:39:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
can be made.
In
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
can be gained from
Scripsit Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a
possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list
mail containing the word patent as spam and reject it...
Am I joking? I'm not sure.
I think you are. Such
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:39, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
longer use
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
(2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have
to think about it.
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:21, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
(2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, David Turner wrote:
But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway.
Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for
which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't
apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
we don't have to worry about legal issues as much, being
source-based, but I've been
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
still haven't been fixed.
Grr. Missing reference.
2:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
can be made.
Is this particularly good advice? It's my understanding that the best
(only)
Le mer 29/01/2003 à 05:22, Seth Woolley a écrit :
Nobody has provided that, and I'm here, doing my part to lobby for you
guys to improve your selection. MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
and it would be terrible
Don Armstrong wrote:
There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer
saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and
patent issues.
That's fine to say, but if you let us know what they are, and we'll comment/fix
them.
So far there are libmpeg2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
and it would be terrible not to include it because of personal issues.
There are
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
can be made.
In fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Is this particularly good advice?
Heh. It's not really even advice, since IANAL. I just think it's
something that we should be aware of.
It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote:
we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
himself for his own code.
How can Debian be sure that that's the case? Debian (correctly) avoids
areas of questionable legality
Josselin Mouette wrote:
it *will* be accepted. No matter how many stupid rants Gabucino can write
Huh? I am not against MPlayer being included into Debian.
no matter how crappy the code is,
Uh.. MPlayer's code is crappy? Hm :)
I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to
charges of *willful* infringement,
That's true. I should probably have said information about patents
that are being actively prosecuted, but then again, if it's something
that (in
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
MPlayer's website: Also, why does debian-legal think they know what
is GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors.
If you want or need this point clairified, I suggest you contact RMS
or an FSF representative. I believe it's fairly clear.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
still haven't been fixed.
Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs.
Yes. A lot of people ignore (rightly or wrongly) 2c. Should Debian
ignore it? That's not for me to decide.
What concerned me was
Don Armstrong wrote:
we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
himself for his own code.
How can Debian be sure that that's the case?
What do you need? A hand-written permission from Walken, photocopied
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:33:31AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about
potentially relevant patents entirely.
AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect you
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Gabucino wrote:
Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below?
So after looking, I find that lrmi.c is under this license:
Copyright (C) 1998 by Josh Vanderhoof
You are free to distribute and modify this file, as long as you do
not remove this copyright notice and
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
can be gained from reading
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 11:40:32PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
can be gained from
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:40 pm, Richard Braakman wrote:
Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
of having patents in the first place?
Heh. The patent system has outlived its usefulness, yes. I believe that it
actually was still useful sometime around 1900 or
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.
I haven't seen a
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 09:53 am, Glenn Maynard wrote:
From http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (effectively the final
word
on patent law, since the Supreme Court rarely takes patent cases) has
ruled that anyone who is not a patent
-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
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:42:23PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
It seems that what you are saying, then, is that we should completely
ignore any patent
issues until and unless we are prompted to do so by holders claiming
that we are infringing.
I'm just quoting from an article I read, which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Hi, I just saw the www.MPlayerhq.hu front-page post and read the large
archive and debate on debian-devel and debian-legal.
That was hours of
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 05:41:00PM +0100, Gabucino wrote:
I think it is unfortunate to disable media playing by default in one of
the biggest Linux distributions in 2003, just because maybe some patent
holder _may_ come and sue. I do understand your viewpoint. I just don't
agree with it.
and the
truth.
From: Gabucino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand
video player for UN*X like systems
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josselin Mouette wrote:
- staying legal (that bunch of sources was legal
36 matches
Mail list logo
