On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 20:53 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
That's irrelevant if they actually own the patent: the goal is not to
avoid getting sued, it's to avoid breaking the law.
With the number of software patents out there, if the goal is not to
break the law (instead of not to
Mike Hommey wrote:
> You forgot the non-respect of the license of the libraries included in
> mplayer (you know, the thing having been brought in another branch of this
> thread).
I've checked the thread, but must have skimmed over it. Which is the library
in question?
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Te
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The trademark restrictions could probably be written in such a way as to
> fall under the spirit of the "if you change it, don't call it foo"
> allowances.
>
> We just need to be wary of any precarious slopes in doing so.
Agreed.
On Thursday 09 October 2003 14:24, Gabucino wrote:
> Gabucino wrote:
> > I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion
> > into Debian.
>
> Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them -
> the purpose this list exists for.
>
> The following is
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 19:26, Gabucino wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste
> > > time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know
> > > what exactly you wish for),
> >
> > All that's needed is to comply with G
Gabucino wrote:
> I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into
> Debian.
Please list _actual_ licensing problems of MPlayer so we can discuss them - the
purpose this list exists for.
The following issues' discussion has started so far:
- libavcodec's possible pat
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > So this is not a problem - again.
> (I've had enough of "Gabucino". Re-plonk.)
Please no flames. If you think I'm wrong in something, please point me to
the facts.
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
pgpPT9Lajhrv8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
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 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
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, 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
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
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.
>
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.
So what? We have an existing policy.
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.
>
> So what? We have an existing policy.
You've lost
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:52:34PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Last I'd heard, "knowing infringement" in the US required the complicity
> of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer deemed qualified to
> judge for themselves whether a given usage is infringing. :P
As I understand it (w
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Last I'd heard, "knowing infringement" in the US required the
> complicity of a patent lawyer, since mere mortals are no longer
> deemed qualified to judge for themselves whether a given usage is
> infringing.
Yeah... that or being told by a patent hold
[Billy: Sorry, meant for this to go to the list.]
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> Well, it is actually illegal, [...]
>
> It would be really nice to have references for those of us who
> haven't taken an IP law course. I don't think this one is obv
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 06:15:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's
> > patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at
> > will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:53:44PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> > There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all
> > happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on
> > Linux
> > market, as far as I know.
>
> That's irrelevant if they actuall
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 08:53:44PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> 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
Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> > So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's
> > patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at
> > will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it
> > wrong
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Joe Drew wrote:
> So far as I know, it is not illegal to infringe on somebody else's
> patents. AIUI patent holders can enforce (or not) their patents at
> will by suing, but doing so is their perogative and no law makes it
> wrong for someone to infringe on a patent which isn'
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 20:53, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
> Gabucino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all
> > happen on Win32 platform. Microsoft has never enforced media patents on
> > Linux
> > market, as far as I know.
>
> That's
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
>> fallen off the site.
> There is a significant part to these patent enforceme
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Huh? Why does xine use -DCONFIG_ENCODERS ? It can't even encode.
> Don't ask me, ask the maintainers of Xine.
I'd rather ask the .deb packager(s), because that is our current subject.
> > > Oops. Looks like Xine has ASF support elsewhere, which is a problem.
> > So? Is i
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
> fallen off the site.
There is a significant part to these patent enforcement stories: they all
happen on Win32 platform
Here's Avery Lee's response:
"I do not know of an actual instance in which the ASF patent was
enforced. What happened was that I received a phone call from member
of the Windows Media team informing me that my ASF code was illegal,
despite being constructed from scratch via data reverse engineerin
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 12:24:06PM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> Yes, someone here told you'd (all) be looking into xine's libavcodec issues.
> More than a half year has passed, and nothing happened. So I continue to
> disregard this matter.
The only mention of libavcodec being in main that I've seen i
Bcc to Avery Lee (phaeron at virtualdub dot org); I don't want to stick
his address in the archives for harvesting without his permission.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:00:28PM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't
> > wish to); I'm only g
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Of course, I don't know the details of any related patents (and don't
> wish to); I'm only going from what I've heard: TMPGEnc had MPEG-2 issues,
> MP3 encoding issues are well-known, and VirtualDub had ASF issues.
> (These are all issues of patents tha
Don Armstrong wrote:
> > d, libmpeg2 - We - the core developers - do not intend to waste
> > time searching for modification dates and such (nor do we know
> > what exactly you wish for),
> All that's needed is to comply with GPL 2a [and probably for any other
> GPLed libraries which yo
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Sorry, that doesn't work. If the library has problems, it has problems
> regardless of whether it was previously allowed into the archive or not.
Yes, someone here told you'd (all) be looking into xine's libavcodec issues.
More than a half year has passed, and nothing happen
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote:
> - marking the changes made on imported libraries. This would
>currently include: libfaad2, libmpflac, libmpdvdkit2, libmpeg2.
>Let me clarify the situation.
[SNIP -- These all seem to be packaging considerations and as such are
orthogonal to the lega
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 09:56:26AM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> - Sam Hocevar raised a concern about libavcodec. I do not intend to answer
>this, since xine was allowed into Debian with a full, included libavcodec.
Sorry, that doesn't work. If the library has problems, it has problems
regardless
Don Armstrong wrote:
> The most recent discussion is at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01633.html
Thanks, I've read all the related threads. It occurs to me that there were
three issues brought up:
- marking the changes made on imported libraries. This would cu
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003, Gabucino wrote:
> I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's
> inclusion into Debian.
The most recent discussion is at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200307/msg01633.html
There were two issues that were still being looked at as far
I wonder if there's still any obstacle in the way of MPlayer's inclusion into
Debian.
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
pgpYlbUv3yysv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
50 matches
Mail list logo
