metapackages

[Dennis Kaarsemaker]

On di, 2005-09-27 at 10:26 +0200, Julien Olivier wrote:

> Just to make it clear for me, and probably others too: what exactly is
> the problem with w32codecs and libdvdcss redistribution ? I thought it
> was something related to US patents, but I might just have been
> misinformed.

w32codecs are binary dlls that have copyrights on them which prevent
distribution. libdvdcss is GPL and breaks no law to the best of my
knowledge. People are just scared of it because it has hints of being
illegal.

> OK, I see. But as a European user, I feel I have to ask: is it legal for
> me to install such packages (as I did, assuming it was), or should I
> remove them ?

to be perfectly legal you would have to download each codec from its
respective owner. libdvdcss is fine. 

> If the problem is really an opposition between the US and the rest of
> the world, maybe a good solution could be to create a non-official
> repository containing packages that are legal in non-US countries, and
> meta-packages to install them. But this wouldn't have to be linked to
> Canonical in any way of course.

The US is just an example of a country with weird laws. It's not the
only country though.

But this is going highly off-topic in here, if you want to discuss this
further, please send follow-ups to sounder at lists.ubuntu.com 
-- 
Dennis K.
  - Linux for human beings: http://www.ubuntulinux.org
  - Linux voor normale mensen: http://www.ubuntulinux.nl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050927/843b26f0/attachment-0001.pgp