Include MPlayer in beta?

[Bryan W. Headley]

Jef Spaleta wrote:
> Bryan W. Headley wrote:
> 
> 
>>Funny, I read it the other way: "..to prevent unwanted crippled 
>>distribution..." He doesn't want the package to be associated with the
>>crippled functionality certain packagers have visited on mplayer, and
>>is mulling what he can do. I appreciate his problem...
> 
> 
> I think someone on friendly terms with the mplayer author..

Wouldn't be me; never "talked" to him. Unless you are "volunteering" 
me... I agree that something in the licensing agreement could say "if 
you use this, use ALL of it", but would then have to have a manifest of 
files/features that would constitute a "complete" mplayer build. On the 
other hand, he's using the right buzzword to get everyone's attention. 
Anything less than the word "patent" would've breezed past everyone.

> For all the mud we sling in Red Hat's direction for having a stated
> trademark policy regarding their distribution, it does protect their
> brand name against poor quality variants in a way that the mplayer
> author seems to want to do with the mplayer brand.

> -jef"is it bad to be hoping the hurricane floods where i live just
> enough so i can stay home friday?"spaleta 

Yes it is. But it's okay to pray for snow days. Maybe because there's 
nothing to mitigate hurricane damage, while there IS show plows...

-- 
____               .:.                 ____
Bryan W. Headley - bwheadley at earthlink.net