hi
I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
namely version 1.0pre6-1
(Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at
http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html
but it is also accessible at
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
)
I REALLY think that the t
mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore
sorry folks
I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb
it is also accessible at
http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
thanx emfox for pointing out
a.
--
Andrea Mennucc
"Ukn ow,Ifina llyfixe dmysp acebar.ohwh att
A Mennucc wrote:
> mplayer_1.0pre6a-1_i386.deb is linked against libxvidcore
>
> sorry folks
>
> I have compiled and uploaded mplayer_1.0pre6a-2_i386.deb
>
> it is also accessible at
> http://tonelli.sns.it/pub/mplayer/sarge
>
> thanx emfox for pointing out
Given the acceptance of ffmpeg, I can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There has been a RFP[1] out for Maia Mailguard[2] for quite some time
now, and as we[3] use it to handle our clients spam/virus filtering, I
was seriously considering packing it for Debian.
The license on Maia isn't very nice (see bottom or [4]) from wh
Scripsit Chris Sacca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not that skilled with legal-speak, and I was wondering
> if someone could clear up if this the DFSG compatible,
It is not free. We have previously rejected software with similar
functional restrictions (though the name escapes me at the moment).
Non
Scripsit Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It is not free. We have previously rejected software with similar
> functional restrictions (though the name escapes me at the moment).
Now I remember: Phpnuke. The discussion on d-l in Feb-Mar 2003
metamorphosed into a variety of other topics, but s
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:46 +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> (Unfortunately it does not show yet in the new queue at
> http://qa.debian.org/~anibal/debian-NEW.html
It does show on the summary. Since there were previous mplayer packages
on NEW, it is listed inside the row of the first package timestamp
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:49:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Joel Aelwyn:
>
> > 4) The DFSG tradition is muddy (at best) on whether it refers to the
> > 4-clause or 3-clause variant of the license -
>
> It's pretty clear: The DFSG are older than the wide-spread adoption of
> the 3-clause B
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > 4. At least one of the following branding conventions must be used:
> > ~a. The Maia Mailguard logo appears in the page-top banner of
> > ~ all HTML output pages in an unmodified form, and links
> > ~ directly to
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:26:24 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> >
> > ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change doesn't
> > mention rationale, either.
>
> This is the relicensing notice and it's useful, but, as you p
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:45:02PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> And, in practice, a lot of it still boils down to what the copyright holder
> views the *practical* requirements of fufilling the clause to mean. If it
> means "make sure the phrase appears in the debian/copyright file", that's
> not te
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Chris Sacca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I'm not that skilled with legal-speak, and I was wondering
> > if someone could clear up if this the DFSG compatible,
>
> It is not free. We have previously rejected software with sim
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 17:53 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > 4. At least one of the following branding conventions must be used:
> > > ~a. The Maia Mailguard logo appears in the page-top banner of
> > > ~ all HTML output
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:22:48PM -0600, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> > It's interesting that copyright holders feel it's necessary to force
> > people to advertise their software. What happened to making your
> > software good enough that word of mouth happens on its own, and people
> > advertise
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:17:14PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> The origionally posted license seemed to imply that clauses 3 and 4 were
> alternatives, and you only had to meet one of them; clause 3 appeared to
> more or less be a BSD advertising clause (cross-reference the 'flowc'
> licensing disc
Andrea Mennucc wrote:
> I have uploaded a new version of the 'mplayer' package for Debian,
> namely version 1.0pre6-1
I have reviewed this package, but I've not tried building it.
Here are my first comments, split under your headings.
> --- HISTORY and CURRENT STATUS=20
The README.Debian refers
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:46:38 +0100, A Mennucc wrote:
> There have been two main problems keeping mplayer out of Debian: licenses
> and copyrights.
>
> Licenses:
> the upstream code contains some code that is protected by (more or less)
> actively enforced licenses: DeCSS code to decode encrypted d
Ken Bloom wrote:
Solution:
the DeCSS is deleted from the package proposed for Debian
What functionality do we lose by doing this?
--Ken Bloom
The ability to play any DVD you buy in a store?
It's the same functionality Xine loses; however, if mplayer uses
dvdread, it'll automatically use libdvdcss
18 matches
Mail list logo
