On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:36:51PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:58:55 +0100 Diego Biurrun wrote: > > Exactly. > The point I am trying to make is that, since I am not a qualified > lawyer, I don't feel confident enough that this file is uncopyrighted. > > But *we do not need* to consult a lawyer in order to solve the issue. > Why? Because we are lucky! That file comes from an (L)GPLed project, > hence there are only two possible cases: > > a) the file is uncopyrighted: fine, no problems at all > > b) the file is copyrighted, but is available to us under the GNU (L)GPL > (which is compatible with the mplayer license): fine, no problems at > all > > What I am suggesting is just properly documenting the origin of `mmx.h' > (which, BTW, is something I recommend anyway for any external > contribution to a project...) and explicitly stating that the software > it came from (that is to say, FFmpeg) is available under the GNU (L)GPL.
The mmx.h from FFmpeg is also based on the original by Dietz and Fisher, as is the one in libmpeg2 (FFmpeg and libmpeg2 are in Debian already). Naturally, those definitions are identical since they #define the same API. You are being overzealous. Documenting the origin is not going to help in any way. If you feel that the copyright status of the new mmx.h is questionable, I suggest that you take the issue to debian-legal. It would be an issue much larger than MPlayer in any case. I insist that the copyright status of the new mmx.h is unblemished and recommend that this bug report be closed. Diego -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
