A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > BTW: I know that 'mplayer' has always been fishy business in Debian.... > but what did 'xvidcap' ever do wrong? AFAICT the only problem may be > that 'xvidcap' contains FFMPEG code ; but FFMPEG has been in Debian for > quite long now, so I do not really understand what is going on here.
People explained a long time ago why this isn't a good argument, and it's kind of frustrating to have people continually asking for a repeat of it. The existence of a package in Debian is not proof that the package is okay to distribute for Debian. We do actually make mistakes, including mistakenly allowing packages into Debian that turn out not to have distributable licenses. It happens all the time. Assuming that what you say above is correct and FFMPEG is the only issue (and I have no reason to doubt you), I agree that xvidcap and ffmpeg should be treated the same. However, that is not evidence that xvidcap should be in Debian -- it's evidence that they should be treated the same. Perhaps the correct thing to do is file an RC bug on ffmpeg and get it removed from the archives. I don't know. When one doesn't know, the right thing to do is frequently both not make the problem worse and not overreact, meaning leaving ffmpeg in the archive and xvidcap in NEW until the situation is clearly understood and resolved is quite reasonable. Of course, we do need to eventually actually get the situation resolved and come to a conclusion, after which either both should be in the archive or neither should. But the current situation of having one in the archive and one not during a hazy patent/license issue is *not* evidence of someone doing a bad job. It is evidence of an incomplete job, which I think everyone, including the ftp-masters, would agree with. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
