Codec metapackages?

[Luis de Bethencourt]

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Cory K. <coryisatm at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <coryisatm at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to
>>> metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree.
>>>
>>> They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either
>>> category. "Free" could ship on the disks.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -Cory \m/
>>>
>>
>> Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need
>> somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing
>> codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe
>> having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is
>> a lawyer no no.
>>
>> Luis
>
> I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive.
> free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the
> lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just
> wondering about the validity of the idea.
>
> -Cory \m/

I havent said it is invalid, I'm discussing and asking about what I don't know.

How many free codecs are there? The number is sadly very small
compared to the encumbered and propietary license ones.

How does Canonical legally give mp3 and mpeg decoders?

Luis

>
> --
> Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
> Ubuntu-Studio-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
>



-- 
Luis de Bethencourt Guimerá
luisbg
<luisbg at ubuntu.com>
GPG: B0ED1326