Andrea Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... there is non-free-software that can be distributed, and
> non-free-sw that cannot be distributed (regardless of where)
And? Nobody said the contrary. Jérôme simply said that software that
can't be distributed is non-free software, which is (was?) the case of
mplayer, despite its *claim* to be released under the GPL.
> ... upstream authors should be listened to (after all, they do most of
> the job), and
Well, this is not *so* clear-cut with free licenses where you can cut
and paste code from here and there and be the upstream developer for the
resulting software.
> ... courtesy is not an option (at least, I usually try to :-)
Nobody said the contrary, IIRC.
The problem with mplayer is IMHO that:
1 - mplayer is illegal (it claims to be GPL but someone pointed again last
week on debian-devel IIRC some pieces of code whose license was either
unknown or non-GPL-compatible) ;
2 - instead of playing low profile due to this aspect, the (or part of
the) mplayer developers are quite arrogant and have forbidden
binary distribution for a while though I am not sure whether the
GPL allows them to do this.
> ... Intent-To-Package have a reason to exist, and not 'the first one
> who uploads wins'
I prefer not commenting on this one as I don't know much about package
hijacking...
> It seems you have different ideas; I am not losing my sleep on this.
Good! :)
--
Florent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
