Do you volunteer to make this?

I am being sincere, not snarky. We could use some help.

I've just started trying out shotcut, but if I end up using it on my next video (which is not that often - not my main activity) I'll take a look at debian packaging.

Closing this because it is not a bug, and we only use this issues tracker for bugs, not enhancement requests. Thank you for considering to help in the future.

I, too, am volunteering to do this. This comment is a note to self. Thanks.

If you do not include all of the dependencies I use for my builds such as Movit, WebVfx, vid.stab, and FFmpeg (2.3) (not Libav), then I do not give Debian permission to name and brand it Shotcut.

I don't (yet) know what Movit, WebVfx and vid.stab are, but in case of ffmpeg, it'd be most correct to set dependencies ffmpeg (>= 7:2.3) | libav-tools (>= 6:11-1), provided shotcut plays well with libav (and not if it doesn't, of course). And I'm not a DD, just a user interested in seeing video editing on GNU/Linux progress futher. 😃 So no permission is required, I only plan to submit a PR with a debian dir that works (compatible with gbp-buildpackage, debuild, etc.).

Shotcut is a trademark of MeltyTech LLC same as Firefox is a trademark of Mozilla:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
As sole proprietor of MeltyTech, I do not give permission to use the Shotcut trademark to make versions based on unsupported (by me) software components and versions.

Packaging for debian does not mean including it in the debian official repositories. These are two separate things, you can offer debian packages without being included in debian.

@ddennedy I don't understand your position, can you elaborate ?

@kernc looking forward to your contribution.

I only want to support and have people using very fixed software configurations regardless of OS or distribution. I do not want to make packages that install into the system and includes components that may conflict with already installed software or packages from the repository. That is an additional level of management for which I do not volunteer. If you make something outside of the configuration prescribed in the build script (for the most part, not 100%), do not call it Shotcut, regardless of whether it is submitted to Debian, is a PPA, or sits on a web server announced through some means.

@ddennedy I understand your argument about not wanting to support other versions. However, this seems to make it kind of impossible ever to get included in any of main linux distributions. Is this only meant until it becomes stable, or is this meant as your policy for all future? If it is the second, then I would think it would be a good idea to start packaging this under another name as soon as possibly so that that other name can become known among all those wanting to install this on their system.

Btw, where can I find that registered trademark? The one for Firefox I found here: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:9haxp9.2.9 . For Shotcut I found nothing in the trademark database, nor anything about Trademarking on the Shotcut website. If you plan on enforcing a trademark, it would probably be a good idea to write about that on the website.

Also: Is there any alternative name you would prefer for a deb package?

In the US, a trademark does not necessarily need to be registered: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/register.jsp
I will soon add a trademark disclosure on the web site and About dialog. If someone wants an editor for Linux desktop through their package manager, then consider to use Kdenlive or Flowblade - two other fine MLT-based projects.

Yes, but a non-registered trademark doesn't have the same type of protection. Internationally there is no protection at all, and within the US you only have limited enforcement. Otherwise everyone forking any github project would need to change the project name immediately. I don't think you can forbid anyone from packaging the app under the name that it has as long as you don't have a registered copyright. And even if you were to acquire it now, people could make claims of prior art and therefore not be affected.

But don't worry, if you don't want others to use the name Shotcut for a packaged version, I am sure everyone will respect that anyway, also without a registered trademark. It's just not comparable to the Mozilla Firefox case.

As for your last point: Can you elaborate on this? Is Shotcut not meant to be used in production use? Is it just something meant for internal testing and demoing? If that is the case, then it would probably also be a good idea to specify that on the site, otherwise people will think it's meant to be an alternative to the existing editors. Kdenlive is fine and all, but at least I was under the impression that Shotcut was developing new features and would be a viable alternative some day.

If any of you are interested I am experimenting with a debian package that simply installs the official shotcut release into /usr/lib/shotcut. It's currently available as a PPA here: https://launchpad.net/~haraldhv/+archive/ubuntu/shotcut/

I'm wondering if this could be reopened now that Debian has moved back to FFmpeg.

I only want to support and have people using very fixed software configurations regardless of OS or distribution. I do not want to make packages that install into the system and includes components that may conflict with already installed software or packages from the repository.

@ddennedy would you be interested in having an AppImage? What you describe is exactly what AppImage is made for, enabling upstream application authors to ship software to end users in precisely the way and with precisely the components they want.

An AppImage is just a self-mounting filesystem image which contains whatever you put in there. Very similar to a .dmg on macOS.

As for a test, I have taken your officially-provided binaries and put them into an AppImage:
https://bintray.com/probono/AppImages/Shotcut/_latestVersion#files

Kdenlive, for example, have recently added AppImage as an option to their download page (right-hand side).

would you be interested in having an AppImage? @probonopd

Maybe, I have been aware of that option for a couple of years. Except, now there are Snaps and Flatpaks. And all of them have a weakness compared to my current archive approach: one must be running the app to have the filesystem mounted in order to take advantage of the other executables Shotcut provides: melt, qmelt, ffmpeg, and ffprobe.

However, I think these do all have the advantage of preventing people from running the binary executable instead of the script wrapper. Also, some desktop environments do not support Shotcut's current launch icon that uses a hack in order to run an executable relative to the icon's directory - something not expressly permitted in the FreeDesktop.org spec.

Deb-packages of Shotcut available in Deb-Multimedia repo https://deb-multimedia.org/pool/main/s/shotcut-dmo/shotcut-dmo

A little later I will create PPA for Ubuntu

Deb-packages of Shotcut available in Deb-Multimedia repo https://deb-multimedia.org/pool/main/s/shotcut-dmo/shotcut-dmo

@ddennedy has requested in his exact github issue that people do not do this. Have you checked with him before uploading the package?

@ddennedy has requested in his exact github issue that people do not do this. Have you checked with him before uploading the package?

This is not my package. I just found it in Deb-Multimedia

If I correctly understood - a problem in name only? What should I do to put the package in Debian and Ubuntu repositories? Rename Shotcut into something else?

Are there any updates on this? I'd really like to have this available from Debian, as it makes keeping the dependencies updated so much easier.

I think you should continue this conversation on the discourse forum (see dan's comment for closing this issue).

It is available in the deb-multimedia repo.

FWIW: it is not Debian Multimedia (which is a team, part of Debian), it is deb-multimedia which is an external one-man-project repo.