mplayer should be moved to universe

Martin Pitt martin.pitt at
Thu Oct 16 15:30:04 BST 2008

Hi Stefan,

sorry for the *really* long delay...

Stefan Potyra [2008-06-01  4:15 +0200]:
> > Moving the source package to universe and put mencoder into multiverse
> > isn't probably possible either: I didn't check if mplayer has some
> > build-depends from multiverse (which would prevent putting mplayer
> > source into universe) or if it's possible to put the source into
> > universe at all (due to the patents as afaik that's a reason why it's in
> > multiverse).
> hm... if only patent issues are a problem, I'd like to know what patents can 
> actually cover. If patents only limit usage, but not distribution, I see no 
> problems with putting mplayer sources in universe, and building binary 
> mencoder packages in multiverse. Can someone clarify this?

universe and multiverse don't differ in terms of redistributability.
If a piece of software isn't redistributable for free and unlimited,
it cannot got into the archive *at all*.

If the entire software is free, it can go into main/universe,
otherwise it belongs to restricted/multiverse. That's entirely a
question of the license.

As for patents, they are pretty orthogonal to our archive components.
They do make a legal difference wrt. shipping them on CDs, or merely
offering download on our archive server. That's why e. g. ffmpeg is in
main, but is banned from ever going onto our CDs.

With those explanations, I don't think having the source in universe
and binaries in multiverse makes any sense. There are cases where the
opposite makes sense, but not this way around.


Martin Pitt                        |
Ubuntu Developer (  | Debian Developer  (
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list