Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that can be gained from reading patents. Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point of having patents in the first place? Bother? Sure. Surprise? No way. Regards, Mako -- Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yukidoke.org/~mako/ pgp4YOTNa4vyC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not actively being enforced. Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to charges of *willful* infringement, I believe it's far better if Debian acts as if software patents did not exist until they become an imminent issue -- just as we normally ignore any patents pertaining to ftp sites and publishing of web content, until and unless we see a letter from a patent holder's lawyer. I wholeheartedly agree. And I think the extra clutter in peoples' mailboxes that this AOL will constitute is worth it, if it helps convince one person to STFU when considering hypothesizing about potential patent problems on this list :) I'll say it again, just to be sure: unless you have a letter from a patent holder's lawyer, please do not post here to tell us about potential patent problems with package X, Y, or Z. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] People are beginning to notice you. Try dressing before you leave the house.
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 patents. /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. -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today is the last day of your life so far.
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 a policy would mean that many actual license texts could not be quoted on the list. It would be hard to explain why APSL's you-lose-if-you-sue-us-over-any-patent clause is nonfree if we can't even say the p-word during the argument. -- Henning MakholmKurt er den eneste jeg kender der er *dum* nok til at gå i *ring* på et jernbanespor.
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 the GPL on my own code, btw.) As an indicator of licensing irregularities it's pretty much useless. Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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. This was a few years ago and I never heard back, so I figured he was still thinking. (This was in the context of suggestions for GPLv3.) So you think that an entry in a separate changelog counts as to carry prominent notices? What do you base that on? Carrying is generally done by the carrier, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to the modified files, where everywhere else it speaks of modified work or modified program. Richard Braakman
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 RMS about it and he said he'd have to think about it. This was a few years ago and I never heard back, so I figured he was still thinking. (This was in the context of suggestions for GPLv3.) I just suggested an alternate wording for GPLv3 to him, Brad, and Eben because of your last message. I hope my patch will be accepted. But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway. So you think that an entry in a separate changelog counts as to carry prominent notices? What do you base that on? Carrying is generally done by the carrier, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to the modified files, where everywhere else it speaks of modified work or modified program. It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 modification by the same author, although it might apply to in-project modification by different authors.] It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it. I'd agree that sufficiently detailed Changelogs fulfill the spirit of the requirement, but I'm pretty sure that they don't fulfill the leter of the requirement. Don Armstrong 1: I'm actually not aware of a single example of an FSF copyrighted GNU program that contains code for which the copyright hasn't been signed over to FSF. -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpItssJn3MUg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 looking for that smoking gun that says the MPlayer is illegal, or even risky! I really do hope you and SM find a lawyer and talk to him or her. Just distributing source does not magically make you immune to legal challenges. Legal objection, That isn't torn to pieces? Please speak it now or, Forever hold your peace, eh? There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and patent issues. Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal issues are important, or seems to be willing to take the time necessary to do an audit of their own codebase. They seem to be relying on debian-legal's pundits to act as their pseudo-counsellor to determine what is legal and what is not. 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 can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems lurking within the codebase. Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible inclusion in Debian will most likely have to: 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and it's distributors to distribute. 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. Until that happens, I'm pretty sure that the ftpmasters will refrain from allowing mplayer into the archives.[1] As far as I know, no Debian Developer or an individual sponsored by a Debian Developer has stepped forward and offered to do this. Until that happens, mplayer will (probably) not be in Debian. Note that I am speaking only on behalf of myself, not Debian. I am *NOT* qualified to speak on behalf of the project. If you think that I am, you're nuts, and should seek psychiatric or medical evaluation. Don Armstrong 1: Although, obviously, they will make their own decision, and could refuse even then. -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpzwuoxbFafp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01712.html Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpYveh0nWAwi.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
-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. PINE apparently won't let me do that no matter how many different ways I added that header to the Default-Compose-Headers. I just followed the instructions on here: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/ If you don't want to CC me, it's up to you. I'll see it anyways updated every hour from the web archive. we don't have to worry about legal issues as much, being source-based, but I've been looking for that smoking gun that says the MPlayer is illegal, or even risky! I really do hope you and SM find a lawyer and talk to him or her. Just distributing source does not magically make you immune to legal challenges. We don't distribute sources. We distribute links in variables, which when used together with our sorcery allow a person to automatically initiate a download from a website, when given a spell. We do not have to store anything on our servers. Some spells in our z-rejected section require user interaction if we've rejected the license, for example. MPlayer is not one of them because we evaluated the risks, at least on MPlayer... like xvid is an optional dependency, which is in our z-rejected section because it says they don't want people to download it who live in the US or Japan. Having a lawyer does not make one immune from legal challenges. Getting a lawyer to rubber stamp something as obvious as MPlayer's legality is not something I'd look into paying someone for. Legal objection, That isn't torn to pieces? Please speak it now or, Forever hold your peace, eh? BTW when I wrote the above, I had read the message that you linked already. There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and patent issues. is jpeg removed? Patent issues on that. How about any one-click programs? Patent issus on those. PNG? Apple's got some IP they could mine... Linux Kernel? SCO sees to have some patent issues with Linux. ClearType ring a bell? We all won't know until they do something. That's what Linus did. That's what MPlayer did... I'll discuss the licensing and copyright problems lower, where you mention them. Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal issues are important, or seems to be willing to take the time necessary to do an audit of their own codebase. They seem to be relying on debian-legal's pundits to act as their pseudo-counsellor to determine what is legal and what is not. MPlayer's website: Also, why does debian-legal think they know what is GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors. They already think they know what is legal, so your characterization is prima facie false. 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. It's an 1.2.1 cvs version. The changes were discussed with Walken (aka. Michel Lespinasse, current libmpeg2 maintainer) he even helped me with some things. Teh fact is that libmpeg2 was designed for OMS (nowdays called xine). Since teh architecture of it and mplayer differs a lot, it had to be changed, and he didn't wanted those changes in the official libmpeg2. Later he wanted, and the current 0.3.1 is very close to something we need, but tere are still a few problems, our patch is still waiting at mpeg2-dev list for commit. but it's gettig OT. So, i really doubt that he will sue us for using libmpeg2 with modifications. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01775.html You really think that's an issue, at all? Submitted patches? You can admit you're wrong whenever you feel like it. Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems lurking within the codebase. The I can find a nit, thus the rest is suspect slippery slope argument doesn't convince me of much anything these days. Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible inclusion in Debian will most likely have to: 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and it's distributors to distribute. Why is MPlayer so special? And, even if they have audited the codebase, and they have convinced you that they have made a determination... what if they are wrong in their determination? Do you trust it? 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. Again with the patents... BTW, I just saw a .deb posted to
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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) way to minimize patent liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about potentially relevant patents entirely. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 not to include it because of personal issues. There are people who think Adobe Photoshop is the best, the fastest, the most stable and the easiest to use imaging software. Unfortunately - for them - it won't enter Debian. Gabucino is within his rights to say that he doesn't want to see bug reports from binary copies of MPlayer floating around and doesn't care about it being included in Debian. But many of your responses were all unfair and baseless. When you don't respect the others' wills regarding licensing, you are hardly in a position to ask others to respect your wills. I, as an evangelist that suggests people use Debian instead of my own distro at times, think that you guys should get over your legal non-issues and include MPlayer, for the benefit of the regular end users that don't want to have to compile everything from source and who want a Totally Free (TM), non-corporate GNU/Linux distro for their desktop. If someone builds a clean, entirely free, without legal problems, package of mplayer (which Andrea has been trying to do for some months - I insist on months, as most packages can enter Debian in a a few days after someone started the job), it *will* be accepted. No matter how many stupid rants Gabucino can write, no matter how crappy the code is, no matter how many of us won't use it. P.S. Anybody who thinks that MPlayer isn't substantially faster than any other free video player for Un*x systems is wholly ignorant of the facts. I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon system with mplayer. That is a fact. Seven hundred million is a measurable number : the number of cycles per second on that system. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 changes: 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. MPlayer's debian package maintainer will have to fix that, as the spoken ChangeLog has no reason to be included in our CVS tree. And it will not be. Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal issues are important False. AFAIR around 0.50 we checked our code for license infringing, and solved them either by contacting its author and requested permission for GPL relicensing, or by rewriting the code in question. If MPlayer is not 100% GPL (except lrmi.c, but that can be left out, sacrificing the very useful VESA video output), we are willing to fix it. Until that happens, mplayer will (probably) not be in Debian. Just be cautious, don't take an argument which also applies to xine ;) -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team not sure how we will proceed here - xine's potential in the video processing field is imho so great that i certainly don't want to miss the chance to work into that direction. - Guenter, xine developer pgprUtyJClvhv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
-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 people who think Adobe Photoshop is the best, the fastest, the most stable and the easiest to use imaging software. Unfortunately - for them - it won't enter Debian. non sequitur... personal issues != awkward legalisms anyways, even if we grant that you are correct. When you don't respect the others' wills regarding licensing, you are hardly in a position to ask others to respect your wills. We all know that situation is over and was due to contradictory circumstances. Now that it's 100% GPL'd, I don't think you can use the genetic fallacy to your advantage. it *will* be accepted. No matter how many stupid rants Gabucino can write, no matter how crappy the code is, no matter how many of us won't use it. Are you bitter about something? P.S. Anybody who thinks that MPlayer isn't substantially faster than any other free video player for Un*x systems is wholly ignorant of the facts. I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon system with mplayer. That is a fact. Seven hundred million is a measurable number : the number of cycles per second on that system. s/the facts/the respective facts/ as it's idiomatic. 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. Here's what you can do: I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue... So far, nobody's done this. - -- Seth Alan Woolley seth at tautology.org, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+N+iP7fQ833vqzH0RAnEAAJ9vBFqHr/oAxAIG6nbtZEPzD38NUQCgjhER Lq139yUkTxPgTWoMS7BKFcA= =wTGd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 actively being enforced. Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to charges of *willful* infringement, I believe it's far better if Debian acts as if software patents did not exist until they become an imminent issue -- just as we normally ignore any patents pertaining to ftp sites and publishing of web content, until and unless we see a letter from a patent holder's lawyer. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpgUt9yw9Yz6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 knowing anything about potentially relevant patents entirely. AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect you from being prosecuted and/or found liable under them, at least in the US. (Unlike the convergent re-creation of copyrighted works.) If someone else knows differently and can quote caselaw, please do. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgppaUBsS0Gxu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 like the plauge. AFAIR around 0.50 we checked our code for license infringing, and solved them either by contacting its author and requested permission for GPL relicensing, or by rewriting the code in question. How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught? Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below? If MPlayer is not 100% GPL (except lrmi.c, but that can be left out, sacrificing the very useful VESA video output), we are willing to fix it. Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely under the GPL? Just be cautious, don't take an argument which also applies to xine If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached. It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpJM55EGODS4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 system with mplayer. What performance issues? Kernel compilation is slow while playing DVD? I can play 800x600 MPEG4 movies on my AMD K6/2 500 without framedrop. We're waiting for your bugreport on mplayer-users. That is a fact. Seven hundred million is a measurable number : the number of cycles per second on that system. Then your computer has enough power to paste MPlayer's output to a text editor. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team pgpmEKItwPyaL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 the minds of -legal) we can cease and desist quickly enough so that it isn't a risk, so be it. *Shrug*. Software patents are really annoying. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpZa7YtlCtxu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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. And, even if they have audited the codebase, and they have convinced you that they have made a determination... what if they are wrong in their determination? Do you trust it? If they make a determination, -legal concurs, ftpmasters agree, it goes into debian, and a problem is found, an RC bug is filed, and the problem gets resolved. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpcTxRhlQHX5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems lurking within the codebase. 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 the GPL on my own code, btw.) As an indicator of licensing irregularities it's pretty much useless. Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible inclusion in Debian will most likely have to: 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and it's distributors to distribute. I haven't dug up the relevant history, but I gather that it had been claimed before that mplayer's copyright licenses were okay when they weren't. If this is indeed the case, then this is a reasonable requirement. 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. I don't think that this is reasonable. Are you prepared to do the same for gcc? It's not possible to be sure that _any_ program is unencumbered by patents. We can only respond to patent threats as and when we become aware of them. Richard Braakman
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 that code as copied from another project (mpeg2dec) without carefully examining the license for that code, and utilizing the code under that license. I don't think that this [patent question] is reasonable. It was a concern of mine, but since it doesn't seem to be thought reasonable by other members of -legal, I withdraw it. [Not that it was ever more than a thought anyway.] Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpKxhuczLYhJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 65535 times, and one piece sent to each goverment of the world for signature? I don't care if you don't believe me. Go ask Walken (M. Lespinasse) then.. Debian (correctly) avoids areas of questionable legality like the plauge. Uh-huh.. See below. How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught? What issue? Do you disregard every mail? Convenient. Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below? Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely under the GPL? Heh. If MPlayer isn't GPL because one of its video output driver (vesa) depends on lrmi, then what will happen to svgalib? Yes, Debian's svgalib also contains a VESA driver, and it uses LRMI for that. svgalib is included in Debian, however it isn't GPL. I wonder... Please don't stand further against me with your transparent ideas, or in the end everything will be stripped from Debian :) If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached. And who will file that? :) Nobody is mazochist here except you :) It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work. Only if you want it to be that way. -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team not sure how we will proceed here - xine's potential in the video processing field is imho so great that i certainly don't want to miss the chance to work into that direction. - Guenter, xine developer pgpHmV3GZ7Ocg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 from being prosecuted and/or found liable under them, at least in the US. (Unlike the convergent re-creation of copyrighted works.) If someone else knows differently and can quote caselaw, please do. 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 attorney is not qualified to determine the scope of the claims in a patent, and that it would be unreasonable for you to determine that a particular patent is not applicable to what you are doing unless you first get a legal opinion from a patent attorney. Because, as a matter of law, you couldn't really have believed that you understood the patent (yes, our federal courts can be quite condescending), you will likely be found liable for triple damages if it turns out that you were wrong, and that you really are infringing the patent. 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 patents. (Someone else can go shoveling through caselaw. :) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 clearly label modified versions as being modified. This software has NO WARRANTY. Use it at your own risk. Which seems (to me anyway) to be GPL compatible. No big deal there. The only questionable issue is the lack of labeling of modified versions, albiet the only modification made to lrmi.c is the addition of this line (oddly enough): diff lrmi.c lrmi.c.orig 11d10 Original location: http://cvs.debian.org/lrmi/ So now I'm totally clueless as to why lrmi.c was even brought up, besides the fact that someone hasn't done their licensing homework. Anyway, I hope Andrea Mennucc and company have been able to make sense of mplayer and can convince the ftpmasters that they have done so. Don Armstrong -- Tell me something interesting about yourself. Lie if you have to. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgpH817xGRaHp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 patents. Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point of having patents in the first place? Richard Braakman
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 reading patents. Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point of having patents in the first place? Preaching to the choir on this one, I think. :) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 possibly even as late as 1950 or so. But since then, it has gradually declined to the point of undermining its precise reason for being -- to promote technological progress. I don't even distinguish between software and hardware -- I think they're both pointless obstructions. In the present era, I believe anyone who could actually afford to use the patent system to protect their inventions doesn't need patents to do so, and those who might conceiveably benefit can't afford to use it. Furthermore, it promotes a general fear of litigation -- punishment for independent innovation. It may serve to prop up existing institutions, but it does not serve the society, IMHO. But then, I also believe I will have a very hard time convincing enough people of this to get the USPO abolished. So we're just doing brinksmanship here, AFAICT. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com ) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com Some things are too important to be taken seriously
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 statement from the libmpeg2 author in this whole thread concerning his in-ness on the whole thing. Do you believe everything someone says on the Internet? No? Then why should we? Why is it so offensive that we ask for proof? Here's what you can do: I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue... So far, nobody's done this. Then you should rest easy, as it's very likely that such high-quality, free, uncontroversial software will be a shoo-in for inclusion. Indeed, it would seem that someone is already hard at work to make this a reality. If the legal situation with mplayer is as you say, then apt-get install mplayer should be a reality in a jiffy. That is your goal, right? Or are you (and others) just interested in slamming people when you say things like that? -- Jeff Licquia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 attorney is not qualified to determine the scope of the claims in a patent, and that it would be unreasonable for you to determine that a particular patent is not applicable to what you are doing unless you first get a legal opinion from a patent attorney. Because, as a matter of law, you couldn't really have believed that you understood the patent (yes, our federal courts can be quite condescending), you will likely be found liable for triple damages if it turns out that you were wrong, and that you really are infringing the patent. 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 patents. (Someone else can go shoveling through caselaw. :) 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. In fact, anyone who actually *researches* such things (or worse still, comments on explicit issues on debian-legal) is exposing us/SPI/someone to extra liability... ...or can we argue that we paid no attention whatsoever to an unqualified opinion voiced on debian-legal, and so were no better informed as to the potential infringement? Hmm... taken to the extreme, anyone who has ever read *any* patent would not be qualified to know that it did not apply to their work, and so would be wilfully infringing. Let's face it, the whole system is a bad joke and should be ignored to as great an extent as possible.
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
-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 of proportion, considering the libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing. s/You guys/a guy/ my mistake. I haven't seen a statement from the libmpeg2 author in this whole thread concerning his in-ness on the whole thing. There was a reply from the MPlayer author who wrote the libmpeg2 part. If you want something other than that, you can ask the libmpeg2 author yourself. It is on -devel. Do you believe everything someone says on the Internet? No? Then why should we? Why is it so offensive that we ask for proof? The only way you're getting proof besides a statement from them is to directly contact the libmpeg2 author. I think it's on track to be being included, so I don't really feel like adding much more to the discussion at this point. Here's what you can do: I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue... So far, nobody's done this. Then you should rest easy, as it's very likely that such high-quality, free, uncontroversial software will be a shoo-in for inclusion. I agree. I'm resting easy. Indeed, it would seem that someone is already hard at work to make this a reality. If the legal situation with mplayer is as you say, then apt-get install mplayer should be a reality in a jiffy. That is your goal, right? Or are you (and others) just interested in slamming people when you say things like that? Is pointing out that there hasn't been a real issue demonstrated slamming people? Then I apologize. I don't want to slam people. I just couldn't find anywhere in all the responses why the MPlayer devs were being treated exclusively the way they were. The only successful point on-issue (there are a lot off-issue) was when the MPlayer devs pointed out the Xine unfair treatment. I don't care if the MPlayer devs are pissy at you. Perhaps I also unfairly grouped - -legal into a group when I shouldn't have. My want to have MPlayer included in THE major distro was emotional, and I cast the net a bit too wide. Apparently I made the same grouping mistake here too: http://www.alterslash.org/#MPlayer_Licence_Trouble_With_A_Twist As I think this will be resolved soon anyways, I'll try to avoid posting on-list anymore. Regards, Seth - -- Seth Alan Woolley seth at tautology.org, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+OIPY7fQ833vqzH0RAvwpAJ9jJoJkap29bVQWMHFjxuSTCiiXWwCgkWZH QUsfhAWNreMgElq5x8SNgtI= =1Twz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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 was written by someone who knows a lot more about patent law than I do. I believe your interpretation matches the general Debian position on patents. (I do agree that the patent system is a bad joke, but it's a joke at our expense ...) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
-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 reading, but I think it was worth it. I am the (as of yesterday) former Video maintainer for SourceMage GNU/Linux, which is a source-based distribution if you are not already familiar with it. I'm not here to trumpet my distro, as I wish us both success, and I always suggest debian as a binary distro, but I just wanted to note that though Gabucino is not as nice as people would want him to be that his points are entirely valid. On our distro, we use MPlayer more than Xine for a reason: it is stable, less buggy, more pure, more featureful, and just plain better. It can also go legally bleeding-edge, which is something that we are less concerned about, due to the fact that our spells simply download from original author's websites and compile locally (often with a small legal blurb about don't do this if...). As an aside, this would be much easier if they didn't keep changing their download locations on their ftp servers and if they version'd their default skin so that I could tell when they update it without having to cron wget to check it every day. But back to my original point. Everybody I know, after installing our basesystem, compiles X and MPlayer. Why? Because Linux needs a working, stable, fast video player for desktop use. If Debian will not have this, but will have Xine, integrated into its pacakage management system, this is totally unfair. I'm not a developer for MPlayer, and yes, we don't have to worry about legal issues as much, being source-based, but I've been looking for that smoking gun that says the MPlayer is illegal, or even risky! 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 not to include it because of personal issues. I ask this because I am not an elitist. To eschew choice because of personal reasons is elitist. Gabucino is within his rights to say that he doesn't want to see bug reports from binary copies of MPlayer floating around and doesn't care about it being included in Debian. But many of your responses were all unfair and baseless. I, as an evangelist that suggests people use Debian instead of my own distro at times, think that you guys should get over your legal non-issues and include MPlayer, for the benefit of the regular end users that don't want to have to compile everything from source and who want a Totally Free (TM), non-corporate GNU/Linux distro for their desktop. Maybe they should be using SMGL or other source-based distros. MPlayer works out of the box, like magic, with bleeding-edge codec after codec. Regarding the suggestion that MPlayer should host the .debs themselves, I can only say that my goal is accessibility. If it is not included by default, the awareness of said package is severely limited to newbies, who would need a package like this. All the experts can still download it and build from source. This is just one _easy_ way to make things more friendly, and a way to truly show your dedication to people who feel that their OS should be able to play the media that they own without having to boot into Windows or Jaguar. Legal objection, That isn't torn to pieces? Please speak it now or, Forever hold your peace, eh? Seth P.S. Anybody who thinks that MPlayer isn't substantially faster than any other free video player for Un*x systems is wholly ignorant of the facts. P.P.S. Anybody who develops for the other players is not worse off: I like them all, they all have their advantages and differences. I'm merely for software choice, and MPlayer being IMHO the leader of the pack right now is not to your detrminent. Keep on trucking; the competition -- with cooperation -- is healthy. - -- Seth Alan Woolley seth at tautology.org, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+N1cp7fQ833vqzH0RAjDXAJ4w8E9YbqyYm4djWzukJC/t1BQgDQCgqR3F 4nxPReny1YK1fDADX/Mdiek= =sUmN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
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. There is no reason why this software cannot be used on Debian systems by Debian users, but it is unreasonable to expect Debian to assume the legal risk of distributing this software. In this case, 'Debian' includes CD vendors, mirror archive operators, and a lot of other intermediaries who may not even be aware of the legal situation. Surely you realize that we are not the only distribution taking this stance. For example: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html This is not idealism; it is self-preservation. With some other software packages, this problem is addressed by taking measures to only distribute such software from countries which do not honor software patents (the now-less-aptly-named non-US archive). However, this issue is generally unclear (at least to me) with regard to what can legally be used or distributed in which countries. afford a lawyer that can estimate the danger, but it is then still _risk_. Life is risky. Indeed, and individuals and organizations must manage their own risk. You cannot expect to coerce anyone else into taking a risk that they are not willing to accept. If you are willing to assume the risk, why not distribute Debian packages on the mplayer site? There are plenty of Debian developers willing to maintain such packages. -- - mdz
[arpi@thot.banki.hu: Re: Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems]
Forwarded to debian-legal -- Gabucino MPlayer Core Team ---BeginMessage--- Hi, Sorry for not replying to teh thread, i'm not subscribed to this list. Gabu FWD'ed the thread and it seems that so many debian ppl thinks and says very false statements. So I have to tell you some comemnts 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 because each libs w= ere distinctable, but _what license would you have given to the binary?_) This is not legal, at least when there the software includes some GPL code. So free speech is not legal? it seems that debian is not only speech... and we'll see that debian is also not free... but debian is actually a new OS/2 (half OS) edition. it contains thousands of programs but only half of each one, the other half was moderated out due to legality reasons :) so the users have to download the missing half from the net, breaking the law. debian's law. That doesn't prevent the binaries from working, using several packages with different cpu optimisations. Many packages in Debian already work this way. We call that method hack. And it's a big waste of space. Think of different binaries for the possible combinations of MMX, MMX2, SSE, SSE2, 3Dnow, 3Dnow2. and then C code compiled for i386, i586, i686, k6 etc. and then think of non-x86 archs. and then debian can introduce the one-program-one-cd concept. - we wouldn't have been #1 - people wouldn't have a working movie player EVEN NOW Wrong. No, true. I am not talking about the present. xine was (is?:) just a buggy piece of hunk that threw sig11s every minute, when MPlayer was the stablest movie player. :) The stuff I meant: half of the libavcodec and MPlayer developers are the same. They evolved together. If their developers behaved like debian developers do (no offense), we'd still be playing Indeo5 AVIs. or uncompressed ones. There have been several movie players around, which are much less painful to install and which comply with the DFSG - and they are included in the main Debian distribution. Amen. And they don't play any modern media file, but since debian is well known for many years old application versions and 'i'm using debian since 20 years' users it shouldn't be a problem... users (and mplayer developers) want an app which is able to play the films, trailers, advertisements, pron, whatever they download from the net. and we accept that it's at the boundaries of legality, when it comes for sorenson video, mpeg4 and such things. this is why we didn't expect (and didn't want) mplayer to be part of any distribution. users can download it and use it. shipping stripped down mplayer/2 with distros has no sense. just look at suse 8.1. it comes with mplayer, without mp3 codec, mpeg4 codec, asf demuxer and so on. it's a big unusable shit. and users keep complaining to us: when will be .asf support implemented? why doesn't it play my divx files? and so on. and they end up removing teh suse version and download the 'original' working one. suse could save few MBs of space and use for more nice kde3 wallpapers or sth. And even with all its optimize-everything-or-die crap, mplayer doesn't perform better. However, many people beg for its inclusion in Debian. Why? :) see my .signature for the answer... Ehh ;) Would you like an 500k diff included in the libmpeg2/ dir? :))) A changelog is not necessary a diff. It's an 1.2.1 cvs version. The changes were discussed with Walken (aka. Michel Lespinasse, current libmpeg2 maintainer) he even helped me with some things. Teh fact is that libmpeg2 was designed for OMS (nowdays called xine). Since teh architecture of it and mplayer differs a lot, it had to be changed, and he didn't wanted those changes in the official libmpeg2. Later he wanted, and the current 0.3.1 is very close to something we need, but tere are still a few problems, our patch is still waiting at mpeg2-dev list for commit. but it's gettig OT. So, i really doubt that he will sue us for using libmpeg2 with modifications. Huh? If someone wants that, he can do 'cvs -z9 log | less' Agree. I can even provide a small script called cvslog.sh which generates nice ChangeLog format text from cvs history. The resulting file is 1.8MB for whole mplayer now. I see no sense of including it with releases, everyone can get it for cvs. With all that willingness from upstream, this will indeed make things difficult. Life is difficult. : But if you want to be #1 (as your goal seems to be world domination), you we are already #1 but it doesn't matter, we make mplayer for ourself and not for idiots. A user who can install a working xine package in 3 clicks won't care it runs 0.001% slower, if it just works
