On Monday, October 08, 2012 09:06:04 PM Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El Dilluns, 8 d'octubre de 2012, a les 20:59:49, Martin Sandsmark va escriure: > > On Monday 8. October 2012 20.06.47 Reindl Harald wrote: > > > this argumentation is invalid > > > with this argumentation you could smoke crack everywhere > > > as long you are not catched and call it legal > > > > Are you even trying to understand what I'm talking about? Patents are > > being > > actively enforced against users of the Linux kernel, not the ffmpeg > > project, and some people still spread lies about the oppposite being > > true, and thereby decreasing the overall impression and quality of free > > software.> > > > how and who should anybody enforce? > > > there is no single company related to a linux-distribution > > > shipping ffmpeg-binaries (SueSE, Redhat, even debian does not) > > > > False. > > > > http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ffmpeg > > http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/ffmpeg/ > > Ubuntu > > http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=ffmpeg&searchon=names&exact=1&sui > te=precise§ion=all
The Ubuntu policy is somewhat more fine grained. ffmpeg (actually libav) is split into multiple packages, some of which, while they are allowed in the package archive and not allowed to ship as part of installation media produced in the Ubuntu project (Kubuntu is part of the Ubuntu project even though it's not Canonical sponsored anymore). [Don't ask me why, I don't know the decision predates my involvement in the project] So even though there are packages in the archive, hard dependencies are still a problem. IANAL, but I suspect that the legal assessment for a company with its headquarters on the Isle of Man (IIRC) is someone different than for one with it's headquarters in the US. I don't think that the existence of Ubuntu packages say anything about the reasonableness of decisions made by other distributions not to ship ffmpeg/libav. Scott K >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
