Ken Bloom wrote:
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 encr
sorry I sent this reply to the wrong list
I also add two missing answers
MJ Ray wrote:
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
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:00:17PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 06:28:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 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
Scripsit A Mennucc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debianizer - isn't there a debian/rules way to do this now?
> no way at all
Yes way. Look up the documentation of 'debian/rules get-orig-source'
in policy.
> suppose that I do this:
> $ tar xjf MPlayer-1.0pre6.tar.bz2
> $ mv MPlayer-1.0pre6 mplayer-1.0
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:19:49PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> I can only tell you what the people I've actually dealt with have said. If
> it's "not practical", and if DFSG #10 enshrines the 4-clause BSD license as
> free by fiat, then we have a much larger question looming.
I (and not only I) co
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my understanding,
> it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the
> Artistic license is just as bad. Maybe, at the very least, someone will
> propose a GR to chang
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my understanding,
>>it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the
>>Artistic license is just as bad. Maybe, at the very least, someone will
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:32:09PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my
> > understanding,
> > it was never even intended to be an actual clause of the DFSG.) Listing the
> > Artistic license
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you
>> suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific licenses
>> it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free but
>> non-optimal), or bec
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:34:06 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I (and not only I) consider DFSG#10 to be a mistake. (From my
> understanding, it was never even intended to be an actual clause of
> the DFSG.) Listing the Artistic license is just as bad.
Agreed.
Count me as one that allows you to writ
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:32:09 + Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you
> suggesting that DFSG 10 is unfortunate because of the specific
> licenses it chooses (ie, it seems to endorse licenses that are free
> but non-optimal), or because it res
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both. They *are* lousy licenses to endorse, and some people *do* try
> to use it as a trump card to defeat rational analysis of these
> licenses. Realistically, even if everybody at the time thought they
> were free according to the DFSG, they might hav
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If one day we find out an issue with one of the three mentioned licenses
> and that issue makes the license non-free, we will be in trouble: what
> could we do in such a case? Say the license is free, even if we are
> convinced it's not? Say it's non-fre
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:56:17PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Oh, I entirely agree. Clause 10 describes licenses that were considered
> free at the time that the DFSG were written, and so the DFSG should be
> interpreted in such a way that those licenses are free. It's difficult
> to make the
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:20:20AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> In practical terms, given the age of the licenses concerned, it's hard
> to say that there's a flaw in one of them that prevents people from
> being able to exercise their freedoms to a sufficient degree.
There's a flaw in one of t
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can deal with the line of reasoning that says "the 4-clause BSD
> license would be non-free, because forbidding anyone mentioning the
> software in banner ads, etc. is insane, but due to its widespread use,
> an exception was made for this license". (I
17 matches
Mail list logo
