[MPlayer-dev-eng] another reason why binary packages for MPlayer are currentFri Nov 16 14:43:53 2001

[Arpi]

Hi,

Hehe, tricky! :)
Gabu, add it to the docs immeiately!

I wanna see this-is-not-mplayer-0.50.rpm :)


> (I post this to -dev since License is always a flamebait on -users and
> it rather concerns developers indeed...)
> 
> Gabucino recently modified the "users against developpers" recently and
> I think we should modify the licensing stuff to have a License basis and
> not tech basis for the no-binary-only policy.
> 
> The fact is that 'people want binary packages'...  We can't avoid that,
> even though there are _real_ and _justified_ technical reasons.
> 
> 
> I think something like that should be added somewher in DOCS or maybe in
> a LICENSE file.
> 
> " MPlayer describes the sourcecode. It contains several files with
>   incompatible licenses especially on the redistribution clauses.
>   As source files, they are allowed to coexist in a same project.
> 
>   Therefore, NEITHER BINARIES NOR BINARY PACKAGES MUST EXIST SINCE SUCH
>   OBJECTS BREAK LICENSES. PEOPLE WHO DISTRIBUTE SUCH BINARY PACKAGES ARE
>   DOING ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
> 
>   So if you know somebody who maintains a binary package then forward
>   her/him this text and (ask him to) contact us.
>   What (s)he does is illegal and IT IS NO LONGER MPlayer, but _his/her_ 
>   mplayer.
> 
>   If it breaks, it is his/her fault. Don't come and cry on the MPlayer
>   mailing lists, you will most likely be blacklisted.
> "
> 
> It's inspired by the lame/notlame stuff, when it still used ISO sources,
> and by the recent DeCSS case.
> 
> 
> So: let's ask the evil-package-mainteners-from-outer-hell-distros to
> rename their packages to another name (notmplayer ?) because of this
> reason and not because of tech issues they don't seem/want to
> understand.
> 
> 
> My point is GPL does not allow such binary to be redistributed because
> of the conflicting licenses - but sourcecode is (Free Speech vs DMCA in
> US for instance).  So, currently MPlayer can be nothing else but a
> source code only release.
> 
> I may be wrong since IANAL but it looks a better reason IMHO.
> 
> (BTW miacos(*) would sound horrible and we'll get sued by Apple(tm) :))
> (*): Mplayer Is A Collection Of Sourcecode)
> 
> --
> Best regards,
>   IANAL but pl
> _______________________________________________
> MPlayer-dev-eng mailing list
> MPlayer-dev-eng at mplayerhq.hu
> http://mplayerhq.hu/mailman/listinfo/mplayer-dev-eng
> 
> 


A'rpi / Astral & ESP-team

--
mailto:arpi at thot.banki.hu
http://esp-team.scene.hu