On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:21:14AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> While I completely agree with the rest of this message, there is no
> reason to threat mplayer in a very special way: if no one can give a
> reason to reject mplayer, there is no reason to reject mplayer, like
> any other project. While
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 05:51:42PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
> license changed?
I think that, as a rule, the -legal mavens don't unilaterally approach
the authors of works or licenses.
The affected p
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:42:30AM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> So this is not a problem - again.
And you're being rudely dismissive - again. Stop acting as if mplayer has
never had licensing problems - again - and as if being careful of
licensing problems is a waste of time - again.
Debian folks ar
Don Armstrong wrote:
> However, since they're generally not free software, nor (for the most
> part) are the even legal to (re-)distribute, we don't distribute them
> in Debian. (I'd strongly recommend that mplayer take a strong look at
> the DLL licenses if mplayer is distributing them.)
We don't
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 02:16:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Actually, I believe it still would be DFSG-free. You are right in
> general that it doesn't matter which law is being used to impinge
> freedom. But a free Official Use Logo could (I think) be written in
> such a way as to be
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More importantly, the DFSG talks about required freedoms. If freedoms
> for a work are actively being restricted by eg. trademark or patent law,
> then the work is just as non-free as if they were restricted by copyright.
> For example, if the Official
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote:
Then let's make it clear.
> - is xine's win32dll loader modified to deny loading WMV9 dlls
> or
> - just DLLs aren't distributed
Since MS doesn't appear to be suing anyone nowdays[1] for patent
violations while causing DLLs to be loaded, we've never had a pr
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 11:36:23AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The violation wouldn't be DFSG-related (the DFSG doesn't say anything
> about patents, only about licenses).
"License" is relevant to both patents and copyrights. If software is
affected by an enforced patent, and a license to tha
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> As Gabucino mentioned, it can also decode WMV9 using the win32 DLL's,
> but distributing them is presumably illegal, so this is only a solution
> for those who have a copy of some Windows version on their computer.
Then let's make it clear.
- is xine's win32dll loader mod
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:03, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/dsp, right?
Yes.
> Interestingly enough, those files are in RIFF format. It's a structured
> multimedia container format.
Interesting.
> Embedded somewhere in the header of v90.dsp is
> the
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to
> > worry.
>
> Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing
> a patent which was what I was discussing.
It'
On 2003-10-08, Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, it is very unlikely that TYPEBANK Co. will win
> a lawsuit in any country. After all, similarity is not implies
> derivative work. But it is very likely that they will threaten,
> harass and terrorize everyyone who will eve
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:59:22AM +0900, Kenshi Muto wrote:
>> As a result of KANOU's investigation, LABO123 32-dot font is same as the
>> bitmap font (TYPEBANK Mincho M) that was developed by TYPEBANK Co.,
>Are these all bitmap fonts, then?
>In some
On 2003-10-08, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the only interesting question is whether a phone call from a
> non-legal Microsoft employee is enough for Debian to count the patent
> as enforced.
Alternatively, does anyone think there's a chance Microsoft would be
willing to stat
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:47:26AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> No source code is provided for the DSP binaries. (N.B., past
> discussions of this issue have reached the conclusion that such
> software can nevertheless be distributed in main.)
>
You're talking about the files in mwavem-1.0.4/src/
Op wo 08-10-2003, om 02:53 schreef Brian T. Sniffen:
> Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Glenn Maynard wrote:
> >> One version of VirtualDub could read ASF files, and that was quickly
> >> removed.
> >> That was back in 2000, and I just checked: the news entries appear to have
> >> falle
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 10:35, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS a écrit :
> > If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g.
> > xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no
> > reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it.
>
> Should this per
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :
> Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit :
> > We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> > newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> > part of the streaming media on the Internet)
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> > newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> > part of the streaming media on the Internet).
>
> If we don't want to include this support, this is n
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If we don't want to include this support, this is not your problem. E.g.
> xine in Debian has WMV9 support stripped off, and there would be no
> reason for mplayer to include it if there are legal issues with it.
lol. Why is it stripped? It's done with the binary DLL.
>
Le mer 08/10/2003 à 00:39, Gabucino a écrit :
> We don't want to receive the endless flow of mails asking about why the
> newest, apt-get'ed MPlayer doesn't play ASF/WMV files (a very significant
> part of the streaming media on the Internet).
If we don't want to include this support, this is not
Has anyone tried talking to the author of OSL in order to get the
license changed?
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
(I don't subscribe debian-legal. I just read the thread via
http://lists.debian.org/ web interface.)
> Are these all bitmap fonts, then?
No, the list includes outline fonts. These outline fonts adopt
TYPEBANK font as a starting point of desigining.
---
Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So our policy is to not fret at all unless we have real reason to
> worry.
Oh sure, but that's unrelated to the legality/illegality of infringing
a patent which was what I was discussing.
Don Armstrong
--
I'd sign up in a hot second for any ce
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Now, 287(a)[2] limits the damages that can be assessed against an
> >> un-notified infringer, but doesn't change the illegality of the
> >> infringing.
>
25 matches
Mail list logo