Re: x11amp

1999-02-02 Thread Stephen Crowley
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:30:41PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote: > > > But that is not the reason why my first guess was non-free. It was > > > the fact that mpg123 is in non-free, and x11amp is (according to > > > the docs) based on it

Re: x11amp

1999-02-02 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:47:25PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > The fact that they hold *a* patent does not put Debian in any sort of > > jeopardy. If anything, it would be the authors; Debian is complying with > > GPL completely. > > Well, yes, but we still have to abide by the patent laws, do

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Josip Rodin
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:30:41PM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote: > > But that is not the reason why my first guess was non-free. It was > > the fact that mpg123 is in non-free, and x11amp is (according to > > the docs) based on it. > > I already have it packaged. It uses plugins for the decoder so

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Josip Rodin
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:30:20PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:14:38PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > > > I don't see why we ought to let some lawyers trying to make a good bluff > > > scare us. > > > > Fraunhofer institute holds the patent, we shouldn't take any chance

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Jay Kominek
> mpg123 is in non-free because of its license. I did not find any > documentation anywhere that indicated that x11amp uses any mpg123 code. > (Where are you looking?) Since it's released as GPL, it's free. [EMAIL PROTECTED] jkominek/tmp]$ tar -tzf x11amp-0.9-alpha1.tar.gz | grep mpg123 x11amp

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Stephen Crowley
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:14:38PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:05:01PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Shaleh wrote: > > > On 01-Feb-99 John Goerzen wrote: > > > > Why should it be non-free if it's GPL? > > > > > > the mp3 patent

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread John Goerzen
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 10:14:38PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > > I don't see why we ought to let some lawyers trying to make a good bluff > > scare us. > > Fraunhofer institute holds the patent, we shouldn't take any chances. The fact that they hold *a* patent does not put Debian in any sort of

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Josip Rodin
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 03:05:01PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Shaleh wrote: > > On 01-Feb-99 John Goerzen wrote: > > > Why should it be non-free if it's GPL? > > > > the mp3 patent > Which nobody has guaranteed is valid or defensable in Germany, let alon

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Gergely Madarasz
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Josip Rodin wrote: > I saw the new alpha version, that has acceptable licence (GPL). > Although it's alpha, I'd like to see it packaged. If you aren't > interested, I'll do it. It would be nice... btw I just downloaded and compiled it... it does not work... I'm investigating n

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread John Goerzen
Which nobody has guaranteed is valid or defensable in Germany, let alone anywhere else. (I believe the EU does not allow software/algorithm patents, IIRC.) And which applies only to encoders. I don't see why we ought to let some lawyers trying to make a good bluff scare us. On Mon, Feb 01, 1999

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread Shaleh
On 01-Feb-99 John Goerzen wrote: > Why should it be non-free if it's GPL? the mp3 patent

Re: x11amp

1999-02-01 Thread John Goerzen
Why should it be non-free if it's GPL? On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 09:51:35PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > Hi, > > I saw the new alpha version, that has acceptable licence (GPL). > Although it's alpha, I'd like to see it packaged. If you aren't > interested, I'll do it. > > For the -devel readers: s