Gregory Maxwell wrote: >If the world's largest online encyclopedia can manage using only free >codecs for its media >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_help), then you can too.
Um, you didn't actually read my message, did you? Since your reply was totally orthogonal to my question. I don't want to encourage anyone to use MPEG encoders; I want to make life easier for the Debian packagers of software which contains MPEG encoders upstream. I'm suggesting not compiling them, disabling them, and generally making them uninstallable and hard to use (if usable at all). They might be useful for people studying encoding techniques, but they wouldn't be immediately usable as encoders by anyone installing the Debian package. We have lots of upstream tarballs which are full of crap, and not having to repack them to remove the crap is a good thing. Do you know anything about the way Debian packaging works? There are virtues to having the "upstream tarball" actually be the upstream tarball, even if it's full of junk which we have no plans to compile or use. >So, even if there were some loophole that made it okay to merely >facilitate the commission of a crime rather than commit it directly, You just begged the question and prejudged the case. The question was whether the courts are *stupid enough* to think that this sort of action would constitute a patent infringement or encouragement of a patent infringement. It shouldn't by any sane legal standard, but the law is not always sane. I await helpful replies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
