Bug#176267: ITP: mplayer -- Mplayer is a full-featured audioand video player for UN*X like systems
Matt Zimmerman
> I think it is unfortunate to disable media playing by default in one of
> the biggest Linux distributions in 2003, just because maybe some patent
> holder _may_ come and sue. I do understand your viewpoint. I just don't
> agree with it.
There is no reason why this software cannot be used on Debian systems by
Debian users, but it is unreasonable to expect Debian to assume the legal
risk of distributing this software. In this case, 'Debian' includes CD
vendors, mirror archive operators, and a lot of other intermediaries who may
not even be aware of the legal situation. Surely you realize that we are
not the only distribution taking this stance. For example:
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html
This is not idealism; it is self-preservation.
With some other software packages, this problem is addressed by taking
measures to only distribute such software from countries which do not honor
software patents (the now-less-aptly-named non-US archive). However, this
issue is generally unclear (at least to me) with regard to what can legally
be used or distributed in which countries.
> > afford a lawyer that can estimate the danger, but it is then still _risk_.
> Life is risky.
Indeed, and individuals and organizations must manage their own risk. You
cannot expect to coerce anyone else into taking a risk that they are not
willing to accept.
If you are willing to assume the risk, why not distribute Debian packages on
the mplayer site? There are plenty of Debian developers willing to maintain
such packages.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-leg...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Seth Woolley
Hash: SHA1
(I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Hi, I just saw the www.MPlayerhq.hu front-page post and read the large
archive and debate on debian-devel and debian-legal.
That was hours of reading, but I think it was worth it.
I am the (as of yesterday) former Video maintainer for SourceMage
GNU/Linux, which is a source-based distribution if you are not already
familiar with it. I'm not here to trumpet my distro, as I wish us both
success, and I always suggest debian as a binary distro, but I just
wanted to note that though Gabucino is not as nice as people would want
him to be that his points are entirely valid.
On our distro, we use MPlayer more than Xine for a reason: it is stable,
less buggy, more pure, more featureful, and just plain better. It can
also go legally bleeding-edge, which is something that we are less
concerned about, due to the fact that our "spells" simply download from
original author's websites and compile locally (often with a small legal
blurb about "don't do this if...").
As an aside, this would be much easier if they didn't keep changing their
download locations on their ftp servers and if they version'd their
default skin so that I could tell when they update it without having to
cron wget to check it every day.
But back to my original point. Everybody I know, after installing our
basesystem, compiles X and MPlayer. Why? Because Linux needs a working,
stable, fast video player for desktop use. If Debian will not have this,
but will have Xine, integrated into its pacakage management system, this
is totally unfair. I'm not a developer for MPlayer, and yes, we don't
have to worry about "legal issues" as much, being source-based, but I've
been looking for that smoking gun that says the MPlayer is illegal, or
even risky!
Nobody has provided that, and I'm here, doing my part to lobby for you
guys to improve your selection. MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
and it would be terrible not to include it because of personal issues.
I ask this because I am not an elitist. To eschew choice because of
personal reasons is elitist.
Gabucino is within his rights to say that he doesn't want to see bug
reports from binary copies of MPlayer floating around and doesn't care
about it being included in Debian. But many of your responses were all
unfair and baseless.
I, as an evangelist that suggests people use Debian instead of my own
distro at times, think that you guys should get over your legal
non-issues and include MPlayer, for the benefit of the regular end users
that don't want to have to compile everything from source and who want a
Totally Free (TM), non-corporate GNU/Linux distro for their desktop.
Maybe they should be using SMGL or other source-based distros. MPlayer
works out of the box, like magic, with bleeding-edge codec after codec.
Regarding the suggestion that MPlayer should host the .debs themselves, I
can only say that my goal is accessibility. If it is not included by
default, the awareness of said package is severely limited to newbies, who
would need a package like this. All the "experts" can still download it
and build from source. This is just one _easy_ way to make things more
friendly, and a way to truly show your dedication to people who feel that
their OS should be able to play the media that they own without having to
boot into Windows or Jaguar.
Legal objection,
That isn't torn to pieces?
Please speak it now or,
Forever hold your peace, eh?
Seth
P.S. Anybody who thinks that MPlayer isn't substantially faster than any
other free video player for Un*x systems is wholly ignorant of the facts.
P.P.S. Anybody who develops for the other players is not worse off: I
like them all, they all have their advantages and differences. I'm merely
for software choice, and MPlayer being IMHO the leader of the pack right
now is not to your detrminent. Keep on trucking; the competition -- with
cooperation -- is healthy.
- --
Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D
Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+N1cp7fQ833vqzH0RAjDXAJ4w8E9YbqyYm4djWzukJC/t1BQgDQCgqR3F
4nxPReny1YK1fDADX/Mdiek=
=sUmN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Don Armstrong
> (I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
> appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
> we don't have to worry about "legal issues" as much, being
> source-based, but I've been looking for that smoking gun that says
> the MPlayer is illegal, or even risky!
I really do hope you and SM find a lawyer and talk to him or her. Just
distributing source does not magically make you immune to legal
challenges.
> Legal objection, That isn't torn to pieces? Please speak it now or,
> Forever hold your peace, eh?
There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer
saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and
patent issues.
Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal
issues are important, or seems to be willing to take the time
necessary to do an audit of their own codebase. They seem to be
relying on debian-legal's pundits to act as their pseudo-counsellor to
determine what is legal and what is not.
I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
still haven't been fixed.
Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem
can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems
lurking within the codebase.
Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible
inclusion in Debian will most likely have to:
1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and
determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and
it's distributors to distribute.
2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
can be made.
Until that happens, I'm pretty sure that the ftpmasters will refrain
from allowing mplayer into the archives.[1]
As far as I know, no Debian Developer or an individual sponsored by a
Debian Developer has stepped forward and offered to do this. Until
that happens, mplayer will (probably) not be in Debian.
Note that I am speaking only on behalf of myself, not Debian. I am
*NOT* qualified to speak on behalf of the project. If you think that I
am, you're nuts, and should seek psychiatric or medical evaluation.
Don Armstrong
1: Although, obviously, they will make their own decision, and could
refuse even then.
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Don Armstrong
> I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
> minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
> still haven't been fixed.
Grr. Missing reference.
2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01712.html
Don Armstrong
Glenn Maynard
> 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> can be made.
Is this particularly good advice? It's my understanding that the best
(only) way to minimize patent liability short of hiring a lawyer is to
avoid knowing anything about potentially relevant patents entirely.
--
Glenn Maynard
Seth Woolley
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Seth Woolley wrote:
> > (I'm supposed to note that I'm not subscribed to debian-legal, but I
> > appreciate responses be CC'd to me.)
>
> Please set your Mail-Followup-To: appropriately then.
PINE apparently won't let me do that no matter how many different ways I
added that header to the Default-Compose-Headers.
I just followed the instructions on here:
http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/
If you don't want to CC me, it's up to you. I'll see it anyways updated
every hour from the web archive.
>
> > we don't have to worry about "legal issues" as much, being
> > source-based, but I've been looking for that smoking gun that says
> > the MPlayer is illegal, or even risky!
>
> I really do hope you and SM find a lawyer and talk to him or her. Just
> distributing source does not magically make you immune to legal
> challenges.
We don't distribute sources. We distribute links in variables, which when
used together with our "sorcery" allow a person to automatically initiate
a download from a website, when given a spell. We do not have to store
anything on our servers. Some spells in our z-rejected section require
user interaction if we've rejected the license, for example. MPlayer is
not one of them because we evaluated the risks, at least on MPlayer...
like xvid is an optional dependency, which is in our z-rejected section
because it says they don't want people to download it who live in the US
or Japan.
Having a lawyer does not make one immune from legal challenges. Getting a
lawyer to rubber stamp something as obvious as MPlayer's legality is not
something I'd look into paying someone for.
>
> > Legal objection, That isn't torn to pieces? Please speak it now or,
> > Forever hold your peace, eh?
BTW when I wrote the above, I had read the message that you linked
already.
>
> There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer
> saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and
> patent issues.
is jpeg removed? Patent issues on that. How about any one-click
programs? Patent issus on those. PNG? Apple's got some IP they could
mine... Linux Kernel? SCO sees to have some patent issues with Linux.
ClearType ring a bell?
We all won't know until they do something. That's what Linus did.
That's what MPlayer did...
I'll discuss the licensing and copyright problems lower, where you
mention them.
>
> Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal
> issues are important, or seems to be willing to take the time
> necessary to do an audit of their own codebase. They seem to be
> relying on debian-legal's pundits to act as their pseudo-counsellor to
> determine what is legal and what is not.
MPlayer's website: "Also, why does debian-legal think they know what is
GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors."
They already think they know what is legal, so your characterization is
prima facie false.
>
> I'm sure you've read about the libmpeg2 problems I found after 5
> minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
> still haven't been fixed.
>
"It's an 1.2.1 cvs version. The changes were discussed with Walken (aka.
Michel Lespinasse, current libmpeg2 maintainer) he even helped me with
some things. Teh fact is that libmpeg2 was designed for OMS (nowdays
called xine). Since teh architecture of it and mplayer differs a lot,
it had to be changed, and he didn't wanted those changes in the official
libmpeg2. Later he wanted, and the current 0.3.1 is very close to something
we need, but tere are still a few problems, our patch is still waiting at
mpeg2-dev list for commit. but it's gettig OT.
"So, i really doubt that he will sue us for using libmpeg2 with
modifications."
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01775.html
You really think that's an issue, at all?
Submitted patches? You can admit you're wrong whenever you feel like it.
> Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem
> can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems
> lurking within the codebase.
The "I can find a nit, thus the rest is suspect" slippery slope argument
doesn't convince me of much anything these days.
>
> Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible
> inclusion in Debian will most likely have to:
>
> 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and
> determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and
> it's distributors to distribute.
Why is MPlayer so special?
And, even if they have audited the codebase, and they have convinced you
that they have made a determination... what if they are wrong in their
determination? Do you trust it?
>
> 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> can be made.
>
Again with the patents...
BTW, I just saw a .deb posted to this list and -devel
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg01940.html
> Until that happens, I'm pretty sure that the ftpmasters will refrain
> from allowing mplayer into the archives.[1]
It's happening right now.
>
> As far as I know, no Debian Developer or an individual sponsored by a
> Debian Developer has stepped forward and offered to do this. Until
> that happens, mplayer will (probably) not be in Debian.
I don't know if this is a "Debian Developer" but it looks like there are
volunteers aplenty.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200301/msg00822.html
>
>
> Note that I am speaking only on behalf of myself, not Debian. I am
> *NOT* qualified to speak on behalf of the project. If you think that I
> am, you're nuts, and should seek psychiatric or medical evaluation.
>
Of course...
>
> Don Armstrong
- --
Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D
Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+N7QK7fQ833vqzH0RAiuUAKDWdMd3Zv+n+shWMj2f534xhtIO4wCgkMlU
bJKQrQta/H1TEnxOljSbRZ8=
=6Rnu
Gabucino
> There have already been numerous legal issues discussed in the mplayer
> saga, ranging from licensing irregularities to copyright problems and
> patent issues.
them.
So far there are libmpeg2 changes: we have no interest to fix that, as even
libmpeg2 author Michael Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's
gonna sue himself for his own code.
MPlayer's debian package maintainer will have to fix that, as the spoken
ChangeLog has no reason to be included in our CVS tree. And it will not be.
> Unfortunatly, no one in the mplayer team seems to think these legal
> issues are important
False. AFAIR around 0.50 we checked our code for license infringing, and
solved them either by contacting its author and requested permission for
GPL relicensing, or by rewriting the code in question.
If MPlayer is not 100% GPL (except lrmi.c, but that can be left out,
sacrificing the very useful VESA video output), we are willing to fix it.
> Until that happens, mplayer will (probably) not be in Debian.
Just be cautious, don't take an argument which also applies to xine ;)
--
Gabucino
MPlayer Core Team
"not sure how we will proceed here - xine's potential in the video
processing field is imho so great that i certainly don't want to miss
the chance to work into that direction." - Guenter, xine developer
Josselin Mouette
> Nobody has provided that, and I'm here, doing my part to lobby for you
> guys to improve your selection. MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
> most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
> and it would be terrible not to include it because of personal issues.
There are people who think Adobe Photoshop is the best, the fastest, the
most stable and the easiest to use imaging software. Unfortunately - for
them - it won't enter Debian.
> Gabucino is within his rights to say that he doesn't want to see bug
> reports from binary copies of MPlayer floating around and doesn't care
> about it being included in Debian. But many of your responses were all
> unfair and baseless.
When you don't respect the others' wills regarding licensing, you are
hardly in a position to ask others to respect your wills.
> I, as an evangelist that suggests people use Debian instead of my own
> distro at times, think that you guys should get over your legal
> non-issues and include MPlayer, for the benefit of the regular end users
> that don't want to have to compile everything from source and who want a
> Totally Free (TM), non-corporate GNU/Linux distro for their desktop.
If someone builds a clean, entirely free, without legal problems,
package of mplayer (which Andrea has been trying to do for some months -
I insist on months, as most packages can enter Debian in a a few days
after someone started the job), it *will* be accepted. No matter how
many stupid rants Gabucino can write, no matter how crappy the code is,
no matter how many of us won't use it.
> P.S. Anybody who thinks that MPlayer isn't substantially faster than any
> other free video player for Un*x systems is wholly ignorant of the facts.
I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon system
with mplayer. That is a fact. Seven hundred million is a measurable
number : the number of cycles per second on that system.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin...@ens-lyon.org
`. `' jo...@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Seth Woolley
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > MPlayer is the best, the fastest, the
> > most stable, and the easiest to use (IMHO) of any of the players, to date,
> > and it would be terrible not to include it because of personal issues.
>
> There are people who think Adobe Photoshop is the best, the fastest, the
> most stable and the easiest to use imaging software. Unfortunately - for
> them - it won't enter Debian.
non sequitur...
personal issues != awkward legalisms anyways, even if we grant that you
are correct.
> When you don't respect the others' wills regarding licensing, you are
> hardly in a position to ask others to respect your wills.
We all know that situation is over and was due to contradictory
circumstances. Now that it's 100% GPL'd, I don't think you can use the
genetic fallacy to your advantage.
> it *will* be accepted. No matter how
> many stupid rants Gabucino can write, no matter how crappy the code is,
> no matter how many of us won't use it.
Are you bitter about something?
>
> > P.S. Anybody who thinks that MPlayer isn't substantially faster than any
> > other free video player for Un*x systems is wholly ignorant of the facts.
>
> I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon system
> with mplayer. That is a fact. Seven hundred million is a measurable
> number : the number of cycles per second on that system.
s/the facts/the respective facts/ as it's idiomatic.
All I see from you people is "he's a bad, bad boy" and nothing
substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
You guys blew the libmpeg2 "issue" way out of proportion, considering the
libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing.
Here's what you can do:
"I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue..."
So far, nobody's done this.
- --
Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D
Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+N+iP7fQ833vqzH0RAnEAAJ9vBFqHr/oAxAIG6nbtZEPzD38NUQCgjhER
Lq139yUkTxPgTWoMS7BKFcA=
=wTGd
Steve Langasek
> 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> can be made.
In fact, I prefer to not hear about any software patents that are not
actively being enforced. Aside from the point that having knowledge of
the patents can lead to charges of *willful* infringement, I believe it's
far better if Debian acts as if software patents did not exist until they
become an imminent issue -- just as we normally ignore any patents
pertaining to ftp sites and publishing of web content, until and unless
we see a letter from a patent holder's lawyer.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Don Armstrong
> Is this particularly good advice?
Heh. It's not really even advice, since IANAL. I just think it's
something that we should be aware of.
> It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
> liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about
> potentially relevant patents entirely.
AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect you from being prosecuted
and/or found liable under them, at least in the US. (Unlike the
convergent re-creation of copyrighted works.)
If someone else knows differently and can quote caselaw, please do.
Don Armstrong
Don Armstrong
> we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
> Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
> himself for his own code.
How can Debian be sure that that's the case? Debian (correctly) avoids
areas of questionable legality like the plauge.
> AFAIR around 0.50 we checked our code for license infringing, and
> solved them either by contacting its author and requested permission
> for GPL relicensing, or by rewriting the code in question.
How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught? Or the lrmi.c issue which
you point out below?
> If MPlayer is not 100% GPL (except lrmi.c, but that can be left out,
> sacrificing the very useful VESA video output), we are willing to fix
> it.
Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely
under the GPL?
> Just be cautious, don't take an argument which also applies to xine
If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which
it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which
major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against
xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached.
It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work.
Don Armstrong
Gabucino
> it *will* be accepted. No matter how many stupid rants Gabucino can write
> no matter how crappy the code is,
Uh.. MPlayer's code is crappy? Hm :)
> I already encountered performance issues on my 700 MHz Athlon system
> with mplayer.
What "performance issues?" Kernel compilation is slow while playing DVD?
I can play 800x600 MPEG4 movies on my AMD K6/2 500 without framedrop. We're
waiting for your bugreport on mplayer-users.
> That is a fact. Seven hundred million is a measurable number : the number of
> cycles per second on that system.
Then your computer has enough power to paste MPlayer's output to a text editor.
Don Armstrong
> MPlayer's website: "Also, why does debian-legal think they know what
> is GPL and what is not better than MPlayer and XAnim authors."
If you want or need this point clairified, I suggest you contact RMS
or an FSF representative. I believe it's fairly clear.
> And, even if they have audited the codebase, and they have convinced
> you that they have made a determination... what if they are wrong in
> their determination? Do you trust it?
If they make a determination, -legal concurs, ftpmasters agree, it
goes into debian, and a problem is found, an RC bug is filed, and the
problem gets resolved.
Don Armstrong
Don Armstrong
> Aside from the point that having knowledge of the patents can lead to
> charges of *willful* infringement,
That's true. I should probably have said information about patents
that are being actively prosecuted, but then again, if it's something
that (in the minds of -legal) we can cease and desist quickly enough
so that it isn't a risk, so be it.
*Shrug*. Software patents are really annoying.
Don Armstrong
Richard Braakman
> minutes of looking through the code.[2] As far as I am aware, they
> still haven't been fixed.
>
> Obviously, if after such a short bit of searching, that such a problem
> can be found brings a strong suspicion that there are other problems
> lurking within the codebase.
I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
longer use the GPL on my own code, btw.) As an indicator of licensing
irregularities it's pretty much useless.
> Whoever takes it upon themselves to package mplayer for possible
> inclusion in Debian will most likely have to:
>
> 1) convince debian-legal that they have audited the codebase and
> determined that everything in the codebase is legal for Debian and
> it's distributors to distribute.
I haven't dug up the relevant history, but I gather that it had
been claimed before that mplayer's copyright licenses were okay
when they weren't. If this is indeed the case, then this is a
reasonable requirement.
> 2) inform debian-legal (and/or the DD's in general) about any patents
> that mplayer may or may not be infringing upon so an informed decision
> can be made.
I don't think that this is reasonable. Are you prepared to do the same
for gcc? It's not possible to be sure that _any_ program is unencumbered
by patents. We can only respond to patent threats as and when we become
aware of them.
Richard Braakman
Don Armstrong
> I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
> widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs.
Yes. A lot of people ignore (rightly or wrongly) 2c. Should Debian
ignore it? That's not for me to decide.
What concerned me was that code as copied from another project
(mpeg2dec) without carefully examining the license for that code, and
utilizing the code under that license.
> I don't think that this [patent question] is reasonable.
It was a concern of mine, but since it doesn't seem to be thought
reasonable by other members of -legal, I withdraw it. [Not that it was
ever more than a thought anyway.]
Don Armstrong
Gabucino
> > we have no interest to fix that, as even libmpeg2 author Michael
> > Lespinasse took part of it, so it's unlikely that he's gonna sue
> > himself for his own code.
> How can Debian be sure that that's the case?
times, and one piece sent to each goverment of the world for signature?
I don't care if you don't believe me. Go ask Walken (M. Lespinasse) then..
> Debian (correctly) avoids areas of questionable legality like the plauge.
Uh-huh.. See below.
> How come the libmpeg2 issue wasn't caught?
What "issue"? Do you disregard every mail? Convenient.
> Or the lrmi.c issue which you point out below?
> Wait a minute. So even to your knowledge Mplayer isn't completely
> under the GPL?
Heh. If MPlayer isn't GPL because one of its video output driver (vesa)
depends on lrmi, then what will happen to svgalib?
Yes, Debian's svgalib also contains a VESA driver, and it uses LRMI for
that. svgalib is included in Debian, however it isn't GPL. I wonder...
Please don't stand further against me with your transparent ideas, or in the
end everything will be stripped from Debian :)
> If xine is not free according to the DFSG or contains material which
> it would be illegal for Debian to distribute in countries in which
> major mirrors are located, then someone should file an RC bug against
> xine, so the issues can be discussed and a concensus reached.
And who will file that? :) Nobody is mazochist here except you :)
> It would sadden me to see that happen, but that's the way things work.
Only if you want it to be that way.
Glenn Maynard
> > It's my understanding that the best (only) way to minimize patent
> > liability short of hiring a lawyer is to avoid knowing anything about
> > potentially relevant patents entirely.
>
> AFAIK, ignorance of patents doesen't protect you from being prosecuted
> and/or found liable under them, at least in the US. (Unlike the
> convergent re-creation of copyrighted works.)
>
> If someone else knows differently and can quote caselaw, please do.
From http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html:
"The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (effectively the final word
on patent law, since the Supreme Court rarely takes patent cases) has
ruled that anyone who is not a patent attorney is not qualified to
determine the scope of the claims in a patent, and that it would be
unreasonable for you to determine that a particular patent is not
applicable to what you are doing unless you first get a legal opinion
from a patent attorney. Because, as a matter of law, you couldn't really
have believed that you understood the patent (yes, our federal courts
can be quite condescending), you will likely be found liable for triple
damages if it turns out that you were wrong, and that you really are
infringing the patent.
Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
can be gained from reading patents."
(Someone else can go shoveling through caselaw. :)
Don Armstrong
So after looking, I find that lrmi.c is under this license:
Copyright (C) 1998 by Josh Vanderhoof
You are free to distribute and modify this file, as long as you do
not remove this copyright notice and clearly label modified versions
as being modified.
This software has NO WARRANTY. Use it at your own risk.
Which seems (to me anyway) to be GPL compatible. No big deal there.
The only questionable issue is the lack of labeling of modified
versions, albiet the only modification made to lrmi.c is the addition
of this line (oddly enough):
diff lrmi.c lrmi.c.orig
11d10
< Original location: http://cvs.debian.org/lrmi/
So now I'm totally clueless as to why lrmi.c was even brought up,
besides the fact that someone hasn't done their licensing homework.
Anyway, I hope Andrea Mennucc and company have been able to make sense
of mplayer and can convince the ftpmasters that they have done so.
Don Armstrong
--
Tell me something interesting about yourself.
Lie if you have to.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/archives/batch20.php
Richard Braakman
> "Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from reading patents."
Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
of having patents in the first place?
Richard Braakman
Glenn Maynard
> > "Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> > reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> > willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> > can be gained from reading patents."
>
> Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
> of having patents in the first place?
Preaching to the choir on this one, I think. :)
--
Glenn Maynard
Terry Hancock
> Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
> of having patents in the first place?
Heh. The patent system has outlived its usefulness, yes. I believe that it
actually was still useful sometime around 1900 or possibly even as late as
1950 or so. But since then, it has gradually declined to the point of
undermining its precise reason for being -- to promote technological
progress. I don't even distinguish between software and hardware -- I think
they're both pointless obstructions.
In the present era, I believe anyone who could actually afford to use the
patent system to protect their inventions doesn't need patents to do so, and
those who might conceiveably benefit can't afford to use it. Furthermore, it
promotes a general fear of litigation -- punishment for independent
innovation. It may serve to prop up existing institutions, but it does not
serve the society, IMHO.
But then, I also believe I will have a very hard time convincing enough
people of this to get the USPO abolished. So we're just doing brinksmanship
here, AFAICT.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
"Some things are too important to be taken seriously"
Jeff Licquia
> All I see from you people is "he's a bad, bad boy" and nothing
> substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
>
> You guys blew the libmpeg2 "issue" way out of proportion, considering the
> libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing.
I haven't seen a statement from the libmpeg2 author in this whole thread
concerning his "in-ness" on "the whole thing".
Do you believe everything someone says on the Internet? No? Then why
should we? Why is it so offensive that we ask for proof?
> Here's what you can do:
>
> "I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue..."
>
> So far, nobody's done this.
Then you should rest easy, as it's very likely that such high-quality,
free, uncontroversial software will be a shoo-in for inclusion. Indeed,
it would seem that someone is already hard at work to make this a
reality. If the legal situation with mplayer is as you say, then
"apt-get install mplayer" should be a reality in a jiffy.
That is your goal, right? Or are you (and others) just interested in
slamming people when you say things like that?
--
Jeff Licquia <lic...@debian.org>
Nick Phillips
> From http://www.advogato.org/article/7.html:
>
> "The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (effectively the final
> word
> on patent law, since the Supreme Court rarely takes patent cases) has
> ruled that anyone who is not a patent attorney is not qualified to
> determine the scope of the claims in a patent, and that it would be
> unreasonable for you to determine that a particular patent is not
> applicable to what you are doing unless you first get a legal opinion
> from a patent attorney. Because, as a matter of law, you couldn't
> really
> have believed that you understood the patent (yes, our federal courts
> can be quite condescending), you will likely be found liable for triple
> damages if it turns out that you were wrong, and that you really are
> infringing the patent.
>
> Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from reading patents."
>
> (Someone else can go shoveling through caselaw. :)
It seems that what you are saying, then, is that we should completely
ignore any patent
issues until and unless we are prompted to do so by holders claiming
that we are infringing.
In fact, anyone who actually *researches* such things (or worse still,
comments on explicit issues on debian-legal) is exposing us/SPI/someone
to extra liability...
...or can we argue that we paid no attention whatsoever to an
unqualified opinion voiced on debian-legal, and so were no better
informed as to the potential infringement?
Hmm... taken to the extreme, anyone who has ever read *any* patent
would not be qualified to know that it did not apply to their work, and
so would be wilfully infringing.
Let's face it, the whole system is a bad joke and should be ignored to
as great an extent as possible.
Seth Woolley
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 09:43, Seth Woolley wrote:
> > All I see from you people is "he's a bad, bad boy" and nothing
> > substantive. You also whine as much as he does.
> >
> > You guys blew the libmpeg2 "issue" way out of proportion, considering the
> > libmpeg2 author was in on the whole thing.
s/You guys/a guy/ my mistake.
>
> I haven't seen a statement from the libmpeg2 author in this whole thread
> concerning his "in-ness" on "the whole thing".
>
There was a reply from the MPlayer author who wrote the libmpeg2 part. If
you want something other than that, you can ask the libmpeg2 author
yourself. It is on -devel.
> Do you believe everything someone says on the Internet? No? Then why
> should we? Why is it so offensive that we ask for proof?
The only way you're getting proof besides a statement from them is to
directly contact the libmpeg2 author. I think it's on track to be being
included, so I don't really feel like adding much more to the
discussion at this point.
>
> > Here's what you can do:
> >
> > "I know others mischaracterized the situation, but here's a real issue..."
> >
> > So far, nobody's done this.
>
> Then you should rest easy, as it's very likely that such high-quality,
> free, uncontroversial software will be a shoo-in for inclusion.
I agree. I'm resting easy.
> Indeed,
> it would seem that someone is already hard at work to make this a
> reality. If the legal situation with mplayer is as you say, then
> "apt-get install mplayer" should be a reality in a jiffy.
>
> That is your goal, right? Or are you (and others) just interested in
> slamming people when you say things like that?
Is pointing out that there hasn't been a real issue demonstrated slamming
people? Then I apologize.
I don't want to slam people. I just couldn't find anywhere in all the
responses why the MPlayer devs were being treated exclusively the way they
were. The only successful point on-issue (there are a lot off-issue) was
when the MPlayer devs pointed out the Xine unfair treatment. I don't care
if the MPlayer devs are pissy at you. Perhaps I also unfairly grouped
- -legal into a group when I shouldn't have.
My want to have MPlayer included in THE major distro was emotional, and I
cast the net a bit too wide.
Apparently I made the same grouping mistake here too:
http://www.alterslash.org/#MPlayer_Licence_Trouble_With_A_Twist
As I think this will be resolved soon anyways, I'll try to avoid posting
on-list anymore.
Regards,
Seth
- --
Seth Alan Woolley <seth at tautology.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized
Key id 7BEACC7D = 2978 0BD1 BA48 B671 C1EB 93F7 EDF4 3CDF 7BEA CC7D
Full Key at seth.tautology.org, see www.gnupg.org www.keyserver.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE+OIPY7fQ833vqzH0RAvwpAJ9jJoJkap29bVQWMHFjxuSTCiiXWwCgkWZH
QUsfhAWNreMgElq5x8SNgtI=
=1Twz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Glenn Maynard
> It seems that what you are saying, then, is that we should completely
> ignore any patent
> issues until and unless we are prompted to do so by holders claiming
> that we are infringing.
I'm just quoting from an article I read, which was written by someone
who knows a lot more about patent law than I do. I believe your
interpretation matches the general Debian position on patents.
(I do agree that the patent system is a bad joke, but it's a joke at our
expense ...)
--
Glenn Maynard
Nick Phillips
I wholeheartedly agree.
And I think the extra clutter in peoples' mailboxes that this "AOL" will
constitute is worth it, if it helps convince one person to STFU when
considering hypothesizing about potential patent problems on this list :)
I'll say it again, just to be sure: unless you have a letter from a patent
holder's lawyer, please do not post here to tell us about "potential patent
problems" with package X, Y, or Z.
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- n...@lemon-computing.com
People are beginning to notice you. Try dressing before you leave the house.
Nick Phillips
> Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> can be gained from reading patents."
/me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a
possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list
mail containing the word "patent" as spam and reject it...
Am I joking? I'm not sure.
--
Nick Phillips -- n...@lemon-computing.com
Today is the last day of your life so far.
Henning Makholm
> /me suggests that, in order to avoid inadvertantly becoming aware of a
> possible patent problem, we get spamassassin tuned up to class any list
> mail containing the word "patent" as spam and reject it...
> Am I joking? I'm not sure.
I think you are. Such a policy would mean that many actual license
texts could not be quoted on the list. It would be hard to explain
why APSL's you-lose-if-you-sue-us-over-any-patent clause is nonfree
if we can't even say the p-word during the argument.
--
Henning Makholm "Kurt er den eneste jeg kender der er
*dum* nok til at gå i *ring* på et jernbanespor."
David Turner
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:43:24AM -0500, Don Armstrong wrote:
[GPL (2)(a) stuff snipped]
> I think you use the wrong example here. That part of the GPL is
> widely ignored in favour of per-project changelogs. (This is why I no
> longer use the GPL on my own code, btw.) As an indicator of licensing
> irregularities it's pretty much useless.
Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
(2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
Richard Braakman
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have
to think about it. This was a few years ago and I never heard back,
so I figured he was still thinking. (This was in the context of
suggestions for GPLv3.)
So you think that an entry in a separate changelog counts as "to carry
prominent notices"? What do you base that on? Carrying is generally
done by the carrier, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to
"the modified files", where everywhere else it speaks of "modified
work" or "modified program".
Richard Braakman
Don Armstrong
> Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant
> with (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files
> themselves.
Quoting 2a directly:
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
that you changed the files and the date of any change.
I don't think that can be made much clearer.
Should it stop a project's inclusion in debian? Probably not, because
the project can quickly and painlessly modify the files to be in
compliance with this term of the GPL.
Don Armstrong
--
Guns Don't Kill People.
*I* Kill People.
David Turner
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 07:35:49PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Per-project changelogs have always been considered to be compliant with
> > (2)(a) -- nothink says the markings must be in the files themselves.
>
> That's news to me. I even asked RMS about it and he said he'd have
> to think about it. This was a few years ago and I never heard back,
> so I figured he was still thinking. (This was in the context of
> suggestions for GPLv3.)
I just suggested an alternate wording for GPLv3 to him, Brad, and Eben
because of your last message. I hope my patch will be accepted.
But Changelogs are what most GNU programs do, anyway.
> So you think that an entry in a separate changelog counts as "to carry
> prominent notices"? What do you base that on? Carrying is generally
> done by the carrier, and I note that GPL 2a specifically refers to
> "the modified files", where everywhere else it speaks of "modified
> work" or "modified program".
It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but
also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it.
--
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
Don Armstrong
Yeah, but most[1] GNU programs don't use code from other GNU projects for
which FSF doesn't own the copyright. So for them, the GPL doesn't
apply. [And this clause doesn't really apply to in-project
modification by the same author, although it might apply to in-project
modification by different authors.]
> It's fuzzy enough that I think Changelogs match what's required, but
> also fuzzy enough that I want to clarify it.
I'd agree that sufficiently detailed Changelogs fulfill the spirit of
the requirement, but I'm pretty sure that they don't fulfill the leter
of the requirement.
Don Armstrong
1: I'm actually not aware of a single example of an FSF copyrighted
GNU program that contains code for which the copyright hasn't been
signed over to FSF.
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Benj. Mako Hill
> > "Because of this, lawyers routinely advise their clients to avoid
> > reading patents in areas they are working in. The danger posed by the
> > willful infringement doctrine is seen as outweighing any benefit that
> > can be gained from reading patents."
>
> Does it bother anyone else that this completely subverts the point
> of having patents in the first place?
Bother? Sure.
Surprise? No way.
Regards,
Mako
--
Benj. Mako Hill
ma...@debian.org
http://yukidoke.org/~mako/