[MPlayer-DOCS] some xml docs cleanup please

[Diego Biurrun]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 10:47:48PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 05:36:47PM +0200, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 03:28:56PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 10:04:35PM +0200, Sebastian Krämer wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > <para>
> > > > > Christian Marillat has been making unofficial Debian packages of
> > > > > <application>MPlayer</application>, <application>MEncoder</application> and
> > > > > our bitmap fonts for a while, you can (apt-)get them from
> > > > > <ulink url="http://hpisi.nerim.net/">his homepage</ulink>.
> > > > > </para>
> > > > 
> > > > Especially since we have a new release now, what's the status with
> > > > Marillat's packages? I'm remembering a flame-ish thread some while ago
> > > > but I don't know the outcome (if there was any).
> > > 
> > > i neither know the current status, but marillats packages
> > > 1. link against undistributable libfaad (claims to be GPL but contains non GPL
> > >    clause)
> > 
> > Yes, but does anybody really care?
> 
> i dont know, probably many people dont even know about it, and thouse
> who do dont understand why theres a problem at all ...
> 
> what iam affraid off is if things like this are ignored then more and more
> people will add a minor clause to the GPL for their software, and even if
> its limited to advertising clauses ... do we want 10 pages of this in
> every program due to code from different places being merged?
> 
> and to go farther in your direction, why not update internal libfaad to 
> the lastest version if its so irrelevant?

OK, what I wrote was highly misleading..

I *do* care about licensing issues.  I doubt the users of Marillat's
packages care about the finer points of combining licenses, though.

Diego