RealNetworks to release more code (News.com) [LWN.net]

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 1:48 UTC (Fri) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]

That's a really loaded comment. Let's address a couple of the pieces:

Why is GPL so important in this case? Is that the *only* software license you'll accept?
I think the dozens of engineers who have worked on this code would take offense to this being "an insignificant bit" of code. This is a large amount of code that does really, really useful stuff.

We'll address the architecture and answer questions in our webcast on Monday, which I hope you will tune in for.

Thanks
Rob Lanphier
Helix Community Coordinator

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 8:34 UTC (Fri) by leandro (subscriber, #1460) [Link]

> That's a really loaded comment.

Sure enough, and that's understandable given the high profile Real has taken both in making content proprietary and in trying to be open source.

> Let's address a couple of the pieces:

You should have addressed the underlying question, not "pieces".

> Why is GPL so important in this case?

GPL is guarantee of future freedom. See the code hoarding by everyone from AT&T to Microsoft from non-copylefted codebases.

> Is that the *only* software license you'll accept?

I can't speak for the original poster, but while I'd accept any true free software licence, I strongly prefer copyleft for any given piece of code, but specially for something so central as a gatewey to lots of content being so widely published, from trailers of motion pictures and Net radios to lectures and speeches. And AFAIK GNU GPL and derived licences (LGPL, Affero, etc) are the only real copyleft licenses around that strike the balance of being truly free on one hand but avoiding major holes to hoarding on the other.

> I think the dozens of engineers who have worked on this codewould take offense to this being "an insignificant bit" of code. This is a large amount of code that does really, really useful stuff.

The number of people, their qualification, and even the amount of code is immaterial to the issue, that is how useful the code is. If it doesn't include the codec and permission to use it, it's not really relevant to the free software community. It would be "just another" server, client and whatsoever, but we will still be locked out of the codec, just as Apple has done before.

So please go away and return with the codec & license to it. I appreciate you might not be able to do so due to shareholders & lawyers & bosses & whasoever else, but then please take a lower profile and make it clear what you are not offering.

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 11:28 UTC (Fri) by flux (guest, #7502) [Link]

RealNetworks has the option to release the code under any licence they wish, the same right you have as a software author. If you do not like the license then do not use the code. If the license puts off most of the users then the project will die anyway.
The GNU GPL (or depending on the situation LGPL) licenses are very good when there is a community of users that are willing to invest time and effort in a project. Personaly I would choose the GPL for most projects, as it ensures the effort that I put in is matched by others who contribute to the code. Secondly it is difficult for a commercial concern to take the code without contrubing back to the community.
_However_ for certain situations a more liberal licence such as BSD is better e.g. ogg vorbis where you are trying to establish a standard. It could be argued that RealNetworks is trying to keep a standard, and have chosen a license which they think best achieves this aim.
There is no need to become personal and tell them to 'go away', if you do not agree with the license then simply do not contribute to the project.

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 16:31 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> If you do not like the license then do not use the code

That's exactly what I said.

> There is no need to become personal and tell them to 'go away'

They are trying to gain support from the Free Software community. As part
of the community I am offering my feed back, which is:

Creating your own license is annoying to developers and users. For me to
find out if the software is Free or not I would have to read their
license. (which I did.) If they released code under the [L]GPL then I
could use it without wasting my time reading legalese.

Further, having read the license I will not use this software.
RealNetworks is given special privilage to the code, they treat it like
property, you can read the code and improve the code but they own your
work if you do. This obviously makes it non-free software.

GNU/Linux users don't *need* the realplayer code, mplayer can already
show '.ram' movies. Code that we are not Free to add to our own projects
is *not* a contribution. We don't need it and I won't use it.

I think leandro made this pretty clear.

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 18:29 UTC (Fri) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]

GNU/Linux users don't *need* the realplayer code, mplayer can already show '.ram' movies. Code that we are not Free to add to our own projects is *not* a contribution. We don't need it and I won't use it.

Sure, as long as you use codec DLLs from Windows software or codec .so's ripped from Real's linux players. MPlayer's codecs are obtained and distributed on very shaky legal ground. I think you can use Helix code for your project under a different license (by dynamically linking).

I say, Kudos to Real for at least trying to be open, and here's hoping it goes better for them with this effort than it has thus far.

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 20:10 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> MPlayer's codecs are obtained and distributed on very shaky legal ground

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Here's the details:

The file divx4_vbr.c contains a note[1] saying it is under the DivX Open
License[2]. This is a BSD style license with a few additional restrictions
that make it non-free such as:

"You must use the ".divx" file extension in any Encoded Content"

Linking this to GPL code constitutes a GPL-violation if I'm not mistaken.
I'll confirm that this information is still correct and bring this issue
up with the developers.

Until this situation changes, you can compile MPlayer without this file
with the following commands:

./configure --disable-divx4linux --disable-mencoder
make

Ciaran O'Riordan

[1] divx4_vbr.c contains this note:
* Large parts of this code were taken from VbrControl() *
* from the OpenDivX project, (C) divxnetworks, *
* this code is published under DivX Open license, which *
* can be found... somewhere... oh, whatever... *

[2] http://www.projectmayo.com/opendivx/license.php

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 8, 2002 1:41 UTC (Sun) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]

> You should have addressed the underlying question, not "pieces".

Well, it wasn't a question, but rather, a rather combative statement. However, here's the question I suppose you'd like to see addressed:

"Why didn't you just use the GPL?"

I'll crib from my mail to the OSI on this topic. We wanted to address the following issues with the GPL:

Closing the "ASP loophole". We want to ensure that someone who sets up a business as an ASP is subject to the same community obligations as someone who creates a shrinkwrap product. See this NewsForge article for more details.
Clear language with respect to the scope of patent rights RealNetworks grants to the community. We are offering a patent license to the code we issue.
Right for RealNetworks to relicense. The subgoals for this are as follows:
- We want to ensure we can bring changes back into our main development trunk, which is dually licensed under the RPSL and the RealNetworks Community Source License (a community source license modelled after the Java Community Source License)
- We want to be able to relicense this under other terms later (perhaps GPL compatibility will become feasible)
- We offer licensing under other terms under custom agreement
Compability with most currently-approved OSI licenses (exceptions being licenses that would read on our RPSL'd code)

> GPL is guarantee of future freedom

What guarantees are in the GPL that are missing from the RPSL?

> The number of people, their qualification, and even the amount
> of code is immaterial to the issue, that is how useful the code
> is. If it doesn't include the codec and permission to use it,
> it's not really relevant to the free software community. It would
> be "just another" server, client and whatsoever, but we will still
> be locked out of the codec, just as Apple has done before.

I'm sure glad you feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire free software community. :)

What you're saying is that you aren't willing to evaluate anything that doesn't include a codec. That's fine, you are intitled to look at it that way. However, since I feel I am myself part of the free software community (having written software under a variety of licenses, including GPL), I'd rather not have you speaking on my behalf. I've put in a lot of work making sure that both RealNetworks and the free software community are getting a good deal out of the Helix release. I hope the rest of the free software community approaches this with more of an open mind.

> So please go away and return with the codec & license
> to it.

"Go away" from where?

> I appreciate you might not be able to do so due
> to shareholders & lawyers & bosses & whasoever else,
> but then please take a lower profile and make it clear
> what you are not offering.

We have nothing to be ashamed of. We're putting millions of dollars of R&D out in open source form. I think it would be poor form for us not to shout this from the highest mountain.

Rob Lanphier
Helix Community Coordinator

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 9, 2002 0:54 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

When asked "Why didn't you just use the GPL?"

You gave four reasons, each of which I will refute:
1. Closing the "ASP loophole"

There is already an approved license that does this, the Affero General
Public License. The FSF lawyers already put time into drafting this
license. Writing a new one of your own duplicates/wastes effort and
complicates collaboration.

2. Clear language with respect to the scope of patent rights RealNetworks
grants to the community

This is covered in the GNU GPL and the Affero GPL.

3. Right for RealNetworks to relicense

You want to incorporate the code of volunteers into a proprietary
version? This can already be achieve with the GPL (as MySQL AB do). Your
solution hides this from developers.

4. Compability with most currently-approved OSI licenses

The GPL is most commonly used license of Free/OpenSource projects. You
have explicitly gone against this compatibility goal by making your own
license.

You also say:
"We're putting millions of dollars of R&D out in open source form."

I don't see any impact from this R&D release. I suspect that most of the
money went into your secret codec, the sole purpose of which is to gain
a monopoly.

The Free Software that makes up Debian GNU/Linux has been valued at
$22 billion. I don't remember the URL but you can find it searching
slashdot or linuxtoday or similar.

I should be trying to persuade you instead of attacking RealNetworks.
Unfortunatly, large companies that do this sort of thing annoy me. This
is a character flaw, hopefully in a year or two I'll be a better diplomat.

Ciaran O'Riordan

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 9, 2002 7:45 UTC (Mon) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]

> I don't see any impact from this R&D release. I suspect that most of
> the money went into your secret codec, the sole purpose of which
> is to gain a monopoly.

When I discuss "millions of dollars of R&D", I'm specifically *excluding* our codec development, which is a small portion of our overall R&D budget. As to our codecs, much of our codec code is licensed from third parties, so it's not ours to give away. However, that's why we're including Ogg Vorbis support and spending the effort to make Ogg Vorbis a first-class citizen -- so that we address this concern.

I'm getting the distinct sense that you're so intent on reading something sinister into this that you'll not consider the possibility that we're doing this on the up-and-up, so I should probably stop wasting my time.

Rob

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 10, 2002 15:37 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

> I'm getting the distinct sense that you're so intent on reading something
> sinister into this that you'll not consider the possibility that we're
> doing this on the up-and-up

There's a chance your right. The promises of other companies have left a
bad taste in my mouth.

I've never trusted RealNetworks, when I was a windows user I used to wonder
why my computer transmitted data without my request every now and then. It
began after I installed realplayer. I've read articles about how the app
transmits your viewing habits back to RealNetworks. Real claimed it was
for market research to improve quality, I don't think that's ethical.

This could all be coincidence, none is 100% provable. One of the reasons
I moved to GNU/Linux is to get away from not knowing what the software on
my computer was doing.

Companies inventing their own licenses annoy me, I think they clutter
the developers lives with legalese. Mozilla once did this but now it'
GPL + LGPL. Who can know the future?

> [...] so I should probably stop wasting my time

Thank you for replying to my previous mail, I thought it was too old to get
a response. I agree that we probably have better uses for our time.
I'll keep up with Reals annoucments, this thread is probably over.

(P.S. I don't know you from other stories etc. so I can't guess at your
intentions, my thoughts/comments are directed at RealNetworks.)

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 12, 2002 7:15 UTC (Thu) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link]

Hi coriordan,

My personal homepage is here, in case you wanted to get a better sense of who I am relative to the company at large.

One thing that would not be a waste of time is to come up with really strong arguments for why we should use the GPL instead of the RPSL. We can always be swayed, but it would take an airtight case for us to make a shift there.

My apologies for getting snippy. I do appreciate your willingness to explain your position. I've personally been around open source as a while, but still have lots to learn myself, and RealNetworks as a company certainly has a lot to learn, and wants to hear from the community.

Rob

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Aug 7, 2003 22:56 UTC (Thu) by leandro (subscriber, #1460) [Link]

> come up with really strong arguments for why we should use the GPL instead of the RPSL

This was done, yet you never answered...

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 20:57 UTC (Fri) by diatribe (guest, #8421) [Link]

Gee, given that our choices are to work with a bunch of different companies' proprietary formats, work with a legitimate open source codec like Real's product or work with the one GPL codec out there that got to market with its first release (v0.90) only two weeks ago after flogging the company that stole their GPL'd software, what should I choose?

The writer's implication that the open source community would prefer a GPL solution over the many other perfectly legitimate open source alternatives provides us with no realistic alternative to Real, M$, Apple, etc. Therefore, I can only conclude such a suggestion is either made by people with an agenda or axe to grind, or that the authors don't actually have to make a living building products in this area.

Would someone please point me to a company making GPL products that is actually making any decent money?

RealNetworks to release more code (News.com)

Posted Dec 6, 2002 21:14 UTC (Fri) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

Your last request leaves the field a bit too open. I'll narrow it down a bit:

Is there any company producing GPL'd software that is profitting (not just pulling in money) from the sale/development/service of that GPL'd software?

I'm sure there are lots of companies selling/developing/servicing GPL'd software that are making money, but I doubt many of them are doing so without pulling most of their money in from selling something proprietary. Red Hat may be the closest to pulling off the GPL/profit trick, but even they seem to be struggling. With their worldwide market share they should be doing LOTS better financially than they are now.