Hi All, <br>I have one question about dvb subtitle in vlc. I know the 'PTS' field is the start time to show the subtitle, but i don't know when to end-display the subtitle(when disappear it). I have read the specification but i cann't find anything about the answer. It's from any field in the PES, or just a constant, e.g 10ms? Same question with subtitle in teletext.<br>
<br>Thanks<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/1 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vlc-devel-request@videolan.org">vlc-devel-request@videolan.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Send vlc-devel mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel" target="_blank">http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:vlc-devel-request@videolan.org">vlc-devel-request@videolan.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:vlc-devel-owner@videolan.org">vlc-devel-owner@videolan.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of vlc-devel digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital format when<br>
dump invalid header of pes (M?ns Rullg?rd)<br>
2. [LONG] VLC on iOS and legal analysis (Jean-Baptiste Kempf)<br>
3. Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player license<br>
(Stephen Norman)<br>
4. Re: Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player license<br>
(Stephen Norman)<br>
5. Re: [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital format when<br>
dump invalid header of pes (wucan)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 23:17:12 +0000<br>
From: M?ns Rullg?rd <<a href="mailto:mans@mansr.com">mans@mansr.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [vlc-devel] [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital<br>
format when dump invalid header of pes<br>
To: <a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:yw1xeib60x6v.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com">yw1xeib60x6v.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1<br>
<br>
wucan <<a href="mailto:can_wu@cnbvcom.com">can_wu@cnbvcom.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> Subject: demux/ts: beatify warning digital format when dump invalid<br>
> header of pes<br>
<br>
Do you know what beatify means? The dictionary says "to declare to<br>
have attained the blessedness of heaven and authorize the title<br>
Blessed and limited public religious honor."<br>
<br>
Not bad for an error message.<br>
<br>
--<br>
M?ns Rullg?rd<br>
<a href="mailto:mans@mansr.com">mans@mansr.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 00:28:07 +0100<br>
From: Jean-Baptiste Kempf <<a href="mailto:jb@videolan.org">jb@videolan.org</a>><br>
Subject: [vlc-devel] [LONG] VLC on iOS and legal analysis<br>
To: <a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:20101031232807.GA5976@videolan.org">20101031232807.GA5976@videolan.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
tl;dr version: lawyers are boring, FSF is FUDing, AppStore terms have changed,<br>
answer is not simple. Jump to Conclusion of II. and III.<br>
<br>
<br>
Longer version<br>
<br>
So, a lot of press, a lot of bad faith and FUD has been around.<br>
This mail tries to detricate this s**tty mess.<br>
<br>
<br>
Personnal DISCLAIMER:<br>
---------------------<br>
Let's start by my opinion, since, as not being a robot, I am biaised.<br>
Also IANAL<br>
<br>
I dislike AppStores, because they make me more work, for no benefits.<br>
But, let's face it, AppStore are going to be more and more common,<br>
MacStore (10.7) and WinStore (Win8), not to mention iOS, Android, and Ovi.<br>
And those will be the natural way of installing software. If you don't<br>
beieve so, you should really speak to users...<br>
<br>
But my political opinion on AppStores is not relevant to the legality of<br>
VLC on those AppStores. And guess what, nor is FSF political opinion!<br>
<br>
I really dislike when people use VLC to advance their _own_ political<br>
agenda. And that is true when it is Apple, Microsoft, Google or the FSF.<br>
There is a minimum of politeness that is essential and that was not<br>
respected...<br>
And I HATE bullshitors...<br>
<br>
I really like RMS past work and actions, but I don't like how the FSF is<br>
using the situation here.<br>
<br>
I also strongly believe that the freedom is to open VLC on as many<br>
platforms as possible.<br>
<br>
And as VideoLAN does not force copyright assignments, I believe VLC is<br>
more open that many FSF/GNU projects...<br>
<br>
Finally, and more importantly, if there is any actual legal issue regarding<br>
VLC and one AppStore term, it should be removed from this AppStore.<br>
<br>
Oh, and btw, I do not thank people who force me to write such posts,<br>
when I have better to do, like working on Blu-Ray playback...<br>
Oh, and btw?, the next person that says it is obvious and simple, I will<br>
force them to compile VLC+Contribs for Win32 3 times.<br>
<br>
<br>
0. Introduction:<br>
----------------<br>
Now, that you have read the necessary disclaimer, let's start.<br>
<br>
First, and foremost, the issue is not regarding VideoLAN... But between<br>
the submitter on the AppStore and VLC developers.<br>
<br>
Then, VLC is using GPLv2+ for some reasons, that one can see on<br>
<a href="http://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.videolan.org/press/2007-1.html</a> VLC is not using GPLv3<br>
<br>
A few documents are MAJOR and need to be read now, in order to stay<br>
factual and not BSors:<br>
- VLC GPLv2 license <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html</a><br>
- Latest AppStore terms: <a href="http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#APPS</a><br>
<br>
<br>
I. FSF statement:<br>
-----------------<br>
The FSF post <a href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/" target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/</a> speaks<br>
about "VLC developer takes a stand against DRM enforcement in Apple's<br>
App Store" and I don't see any post regarding DRM. VLC and VideoLAN have<br>
been projects that have fought DRM since a long time, as the libvdcss<br>
integration shows.<br>
<br>
The post refers to<br>
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement" target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/news/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store-gpl-enforcement</a><br>
which is the important document, and was about the Gnu GO thing.<br>
<br>
<br>
And this second post emphasis one 2 quotes:<br>
<br>
1) "In the App Store Terms of Service, the programs that you download<br>
from the App Store are called "Products" (the definition is in section<br>
4). In section 9(b), the Terms set out "Usage Rules" for the software:<br>
<br>
You acknowledge that Products contain security technology that<br>
limits your usage of Products to the following applicable Usage Rules,<br>
and, whether or not Products are limited by security technology, you<br>
agree to use Products in compliance with the applicable Usage Rules."<br>
<br>
2) "Some people have pointed out that the App Store Terms of Service<br>
say that a separate license to the software is provided to you by the<br>
developer, and that's true. But the Usage Rules are imposed on you no<br>
matter how the software is licensed. The Terms themselves make this<br>
explicit this in section 9(c), which says:<br>
<br>
The Usage Rules shall govern your rights with respect to the<br>
Products, in addition to any other terms or rules that may have been<br>
established between you and another party.<br>
<br>
That's the problem in a nutshell: Apple's Terms of Service impose<br>
restrictive limits on use and distribution for any software distributed<br>
through the App Store, and the GPL doesn't allow that. This specific<br>
case involves other issues, but this is the one that's most unique and<br>
deserves explanation."<br>
<br>
<br>
And guess what, the AppStore terms have changed!<br>
--------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
Try to grep "Products contain security technology" and "in addition to any other"<br>
on the above document.<br>
If you don't know how to grep, try "man grep" and "man curl"<br>
<br>
Maybe the FSF statements made Apple change the ToS, maybe R?mi's<br>
complaint, maybe... $(put whatever you want here).<br>
<br>
Conclusion of part I.<br>
---------------------<br>
The FSF statement is not valid anymore, and therefore the<br>
<a href="http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/" target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/</a> is just plainly<br>
wrong (or FUD)<br>
<br>
Therefore, we need to analyze ourselves... Nice.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Analysis of the AppStore terms part II and part III<br>
===================================================<br>
The part named:<br>
C. APP STORE AND IBOOKSTORE TERMS AND CONDITIONS<br>
is relevant to the discussion.<br>
<br>
And especially<br>
"ADDITIONAL APP STORE TERMS AND CONDITIONS"<br>
with 2 subitems:<br>
1) "LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS"<br>
<br>
2) "APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES"<br>
<br>
<br>
II. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 1 ("LICENSE OF APP STORE PRODUCTS")<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
My comments starts with -><br>
<br>
'The software products made available through the App Store (the ?App<br>
Store Products?) are licensed, not sold, to you. There are two (2)<br>
categories of App Store Products, as follows: (i) those App Store<br>
Products that have been developed, and are licensed to you, by Apple<br>
(the ?Apple Products?); and (ii) those App Store Products that have<br>
been developed, and are licensed to you, by a third-party developer (the<br>
?Third-Party Products?). The category of a particular App Store<br>
Product (Apple Product or Third-Party Product) is identified on the App<br>
Store Service application.'<br>
<br>
-> VLC on iOS is a ?Third-Party Products?. No discussion here, I guess.<br>
<br>
'Your license to each App Store Product is subject to the Licensed<br>
Application End User License Agreement set forth below. You agree that<br>
the terms of the Licensed Application End User License Agreement will<br>
apply to each Apple Product and to each Third-Party Product that you<br>
license through the App Store Service, unless the App Store Product is<br>
covered by a valid end user license agreement entered into between you<br>
and the licensor of the App Store Product (the ?Licensor?), in which<br>
case the Licensor?s end user license agreement will apply to that App<br>
Store Product. The Licensor reserves all rights in and to the App<br>
Store Product not expressly granted to you.'<br>
<br>
-> _Important_ part:<br>
"unless the App Store Product is covered by a valid end user license<br>
agreement entered into between you and the licensor of the App Store<br>
Product"<br>
This means that if VLC has a "valid end user license agreement",<br>
the Apple "Licensed Application End User License Agreement" does not<br>
apply to them.<br>
If it doesn't, then, this Apple LAEULA applies and are obviously not<br>
compatible to the GPLv2<br>
<br>
'You acknowledge that the license you purchase to each Apple Product<br>
that you obtain through the App Store Service is a binding agreement<br>
between you and Apple. You acknowledge that: you are purchasing the<br>
license to each Third-Party Product from the third-party licensor of<br>
that Third-Party Product (the ?Application Provider?); Apple is acting<br>
as agent for the Application Provider in providing each such<br>
Third-Party Product to you; and Apple is not a party to the license<br>
between you and the Application Provider with respect to that<br>
Third-Party Product. The Application Provider of each Third-Party<br>
Product is solely responsible for that Third-Party Product, the<br>
content therein, any warranties to the extent that such warranties<br>
have not been disclaimed, and any claims that you or any other party<br>
may have relating to that Third-Party Product.'<br>
<br>
-> for VLC on iOS, "Apple is not a party to the license<br>
between you and the Application Provider with respect to that<br>
Third-Party Product."<br>
Nothing blocking the GPLv2<br>
<br>
'You acknowledge and agree that Apple and its subsidiaries are<br>
third-party beneficiaries of the Licensed Application End User License<br>
Agreement or the Application Provider?s end user license agreement,<br>
as the case may be, for each Third-Party Product. You also agree that,<br>
upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of the license to any<br>
such Third-Party Product, Apple will have the right (and will be deemed<br>
to have accepted the right) to enforce such license against you as a<br>
third-party beneficiary thereof.'<br>
<br>
-> "as the case may be" => not applicable.<br>
Apple has the right of enforcing 3rd party licenses on the AppStore<br>
Nothing blocking the GPLv2<br>
<br>
'Certain App Store Products may include functionality that enables you to<br>
purchase additional services, or licenses to additional functionality or<br>
content for use within the App Store Product ("In App Purchases"). In<br>
App Purchases that are consumed during the use of the App Store Product<br>
(for example, virtual ammunition) cannot be transferred among devices;<br>
can be downloaded only once; and after being downloaded, cannot be<br>
replaced. Once a consumable In App Purchase is purchased and received<br>
by you, Apple shall be without liability to you in the event of any<br>
loss, destruction, or damage. All In App Purchases are deemed App Store<br>
Products, and In App Purchases made within Third-Party Products are<br>
deemed Third-Party Products, and treated as such, for purposes of these<br>
terms and conditions.'<br>
<br>
-> VLC iOS is not concerned by "additional services or functionality"<br>
<br>
<br>
Conclusion of II. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 1<br>
---------------------------------------------------------<br>
The AppStore terms don't seem to block any open source application.<br>
<br>
To me, it seems that this part resolves to the question<br>
<br>
If the GPLv2 is:<br>
"a valid end user license agreement entered into between you and the licensor<br>
of the App Store Product" ?<br>
<br>
GPLv2 ?0 says:<br>
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not<br>
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running<br>
the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is<br>
covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program<br>
(independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that<br>
is true depends on what the Program does."<br>
<br>
This can be interpreted as an VEULA ("The act of running the Program is<br>
not restricted") and can be interpreted differently. I have to say that<br>
this is a kind of grey area to me, not to mention what "valid" means?<br>
<br>
If this really matters, submitters of the iOS application on the<br>
AppStore can add a very simple VEULA that is compatible to the GPLv2.<br>
<br>
<br>
III. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 2 ("APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES")<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
My comments starts with -><br>
APP STORE PRODUCT USAGE RULES<br>
<br>
'(i) You may download and sync a Product for personal, noncommercial use<br>
on any device You own or control.'<br>
<br>
-> I don't see any restriction on usage , "may not", "should not", "not allowed to"<br>
or anything restricting the user freedoms.<br>
<br>
'(ii) If You are a commercial enterprise or educational institution,<br>
You may download and sync a Product for use by either (a) a single<br>
individual on one or more devices You own or control or (b) multiple<br>
individuals, on a single shared device You own or control. For example,<br>
a single employee may use the Product on both the employee's iPhone and<br>
iPad, or multiple students may serially use the Product on a single iPad<br>
located at a resource center or library.'<br>
<br>
-> Again, I don't see any restriction on usage, any "may not" or "not<br>
allowed to"<br>
<br>
'(iii) You shall be able to store App Store Products from up to five<br>
different Accounts at a time on compatible iOS-based devices.'<br>
<br>
-> Here I don't understand the "from up to", so I have a very hard time<br>
answering this part.<br>
Does it mean that "whatever license of the Product, you shall always<br>
be allowed to store the Product on at least 5 iOS devices" or<br>
"You are not allowed to store the Products on more than 5 iOS devices" ?<br>
<br>
'(iv) You shall be able to store App Store Products on five<br>
iTunes-authorized devices at any time.'<br>
<br>
-> This is mostly the reverse same question.<br>
<br>
'(v) You shall be able to manually sync App Store Products from at least<br>
one iTunes-authorized device to devices that have manual sync mode,<br>
provided that the App Store Product is associated with an Account on the<br>
primary iTunes-authorized device, where the primary iTunes-authorized<br>
device is the one that was first synced with the device or the one that<br>
you subsequently designate as primary using iTunes.'<br>
<br>
-> No restrictions here<br>
<br>
<br>
The GPLv2?6 seems to say<br>
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise<br>
of the rights granted herein", and those rights are "copy, distribute or<br>
modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions"<br>
I don't see the GPLv2 saying "You may not impose any further<br>
restrictions on usage"<br>
<br>
<br>
Conclusion of III. Analysis of the AppStore terms - part 2<br>
----------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Well, I believe this part is more tricky and the lawyer-language is made<br>
to f**k normal people understanding.<br>
(i), (ii) and (v) are not restricting anything on VLC on iOS usage<br>
(iii) and (iv) are subject to interpretation, and I still have a hard<br>
time on these part.<br>
<br>
Both (iii) and (iv) seem to grant rights, "shall be able to" and<br>
not restrict "DO NOT ALLOW" (as used in the rest of the AppStore<br>
document.<br>
<br>
It also seems one can create as many iTunes account as he wants.<br>
Moreover, I have a hard time understanding if the GPLv2 forbids<br>
adding extra restrictions on usage or not.<br>
<br>
<br>
IV. Conclusion<br>
--------------<br>
Concluding is quite hard here. The AppStore terms may or may not be<br>
compatible with the GPLv2 and VLC license, depending on the<br>
interpretation.<br>
See Conclusion of II and Conclusion of III.<br>
<br>
Conclusion of part II seems to be work-aroundable, whatever the<br>
interpretation.<br>
<br>
Conclusion of part III probably needs Apple to detail more what they<br>
mean with part (iii) and (iv) of USAGE RULES of APPSTORE PRODUCTS<br>
<br>
<br>
Also, it should be noted that the VLC on iOS source code and binaries are<br>
on the <a href="http://videolan.org" target="_blank">videolan.org</a> website, and anyone can modify and recompile VLC for<br>
iOS at any time, and redistribute it, through the mean he wants.<br>
And that are the important rights of GPLv2.<br>
<br>
<br>
I did my best to be objective, please do not flame me.<br>
<br>
<br>
PS:<br>
And I have to remind that "the issue is not regarding VideoLAN... But between<br>
the submitter on the AppStore and VLC developers."<br>
<br>
PPS:<br>
The submission terms are a private contract between the submitter and Apple,<br>
and, are not relevant to the terms of redistribution and usage, like for<br>
normal Xcode developer account.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jean-Baptiste Kempf<br>
<a href="http://www.jbkempf.com/" target="_blank">http://www.jbkempf.com/</a><br>
+33 672 704 734<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:46:29 +1100<br>
From: Stephen Norman <<a href="mailto:stenorman2001@me.com">stenorman2001@me.com</a>><br>
Subject: [vlc-devel] Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player<br>
license<br>
To: <a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:C650C16E-403F-418B-BB70-0ACB8D2DA440@me.com">C650C16E-403F-418B-BB70-0ACB8D2DA440@me.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Apologies for bringing this up again and I just wanted to add my two cents here.<br>
<br>
Firstly, why is everyone blaming Apple for this violation? Aren't Applidium the distributers of this app as they submitted the application to the App Store? That would mean that Apple are re-distributing the application, which doesn't seem to necessarily fall under the same area as distributing.<br>
<br>
Secondly, Apple have made their terms of service very clear in the license agreement. If an application is submitted to the App Store, does Apple not have the right to expect that the developer has obtained the necessary permission to distribute the application on the App Store? I think it's a little rude to expect Apple to chase down the potential license holders for every single app placed on the App Store and check that they are ok with that?<br>
<br>
Sure, there are some things regarding Apple TOS that I would like to see changed, and maybe they will, but as others have said, using this potential violation of the GPL as an excuse to target Apple and it's App Store policies is a bad way to go about it and makes those involved look opportunistic.<br>
<br>
A somewhat concerned user of VLC (and VLC for iPad),<br>
<br>
Stephen<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:49:27 +1100<br>
From: Stephen Norman <<a href="mailto:stenorman2001@me.com">stenorman2001@me.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [vlc-devel] Apple AppStore infringing VLC media player<br>
license<br>
To: <a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a><br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:AEF9603D-C34A-46AB-BCDB-47F010325DBC@me.com">AEF9603D-C34A-46AB-BCDB-47F010325DBC@me.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Just a quick note too, would it simply be easier to ask Applidium to remove the app from the App Store, informing them that by distributing the application via this method they may be infringing on the GPL?<br>
<br>
On 31/10/2010, at 3:46 PM, Stephen Norman wrote:<br>
<br>
> Apologies for bringing this up again and I just wanted to add my two cents here.<br>
><br>
> Firstly, why is everyone blaming Apple for this violation? Aren't Applidium the distributers of this app as they submitted the application to the App Store? That would mean that Apple are re-distributing the application, which doesn't seem to necessarily fall under the same area as distributing.<br>
><br>
> Secondly, Apple have made their terms of service very clear in the license agreement. If an application is submitted to the App Store, does Apple not have the right to expect that the developer has obtained the necessary permission to distribute the application on the App Store? I think it's a little rude to expect Apple to chase down the potential license holders for every single app placed on the App Store and check that they are ok with that?<br>
><br>
> Sure, there are some things regarding Apple TOS that I would like to see changed, and maybe they will, but as others have said, using this potential violation of the GPL as an excuse to target Apple and it's App Store policies is a bad way to go about it and makes those involved look opportunistic.<br>
><br>
> A somewhat concerned user of VLC (and VLC for iPad),<br>
><br>
> Stephen<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 20:43:30 +0800<br>
From: wucan <<a href="mailto:can_wu@cnbvcom.com">can_wu@cnbvcom.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [vlc-devel] [PATCH] demux/ts: beatify warning digital<br>
format when dump invalid header of pes<br>
To: Mailing list for VLC media player developers<br>
<<a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a>><br>
Message-ID: <1288529010.12170.6.camel@wucan-laptop><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br>
<br>
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 12:18 +0200, Rafa?l Carr? wrote:<br>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:25:18 +0800<br>
> wucan <<a href="mailto:can_wu@cnbvcom.com">can_wu@cnbvcom.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hello:<br>
><br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> > I had see these debug message in vlc output:<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0x5b:83:4:1c] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0x4d:29:e7:c9] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (1->0)<br>
> > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (0->1)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0x98:d6:84:1a] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0x8c:d7:49:f1] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0xe1:6:85:25] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (1->0)<br>
> > ts warning: scrambled state changed on pid 102 (0->1)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0xae:87:3e:3] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0xab:e8:57:c0] (pid: 102)<br>
> > ts warning: invalid header [0x35:a6:3a:ab] (pid: 102)<br>
> ><br>
> > The "invalid header" digital is not format with %02x, but %x, so<br>
> > please apply this minor patch.<br>
><br>
> The patch doesn't apply, your mailer broke the lines longer than 80<br>
> characters.<br>
><br>
> Can you send it again attached?<br>
><br>
I'm leave for a while(oh, some days), sorry, but I found R?mi had<br>
already applied it some hours ago when I online again.<br>
<br>
--<br>
wucan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
vlc-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:vlc-devel@videolan.org">vlc-devel@videolan.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel" target="_blank">http://mailman.videolan.org/listinfo/vlc-devel</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of vlc-devel Digest, Vol 42, Issue 1<br>
****************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br>