Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
(Log in to post comments)
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 3, 2007 13:30 UTC (Sat) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]
Codec Buddy doesn't offer a legal route to encode MP3s or other proprietary formats.
From the size of the scroll bar, it looks like the EULA is long and restrictive. Does it forbid licensing the Fluendo implementation but using FLOSS code? (I suspect so.)
Sad to say, codecs are one of the best arguments in favor of software patents. Making a good codec is work; it's not obvious to the skilled coder. And there's more than one way to get the desired end result -- witness the number of proprietary codecs out there.
That said, it's still just a bunch of math. I shall now turn my laptop off and go flog myself.
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 3, 2007 13:41 UTC (Sat) by spot (subscriber, #15640) [Link]
AFAIK, there is no legal route (in the US) to encode MP3s (on Linux).
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 4, 2007 5:07 UTC (Sun) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]
Playing devils advocate: Could you do it through Wine with a licensed Win/Mac application?
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 4, 2007 22:42 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Depends on the EULA of the application, and weither or not the EULA is actually legal. Most of Microsoft's tools say things like 'any application you make requires a microsoft windows license to run' or something like that. Basicly they don't want you to use anything you make using Micrsoft stuff to run on anything other then Microsoft Windows. For example: Years ago there was a fall out with FoxPro developers and Microsoft over this. Microsoft bought out FoxPro basicly to get FoxPro's customer base. Some of those developers disliked Windows and did their development on Linux using Wine.. which Microsoft then came back and told them this was completely illegal. After some fighting the end people figured that while it was ok to develop their applications in Linux the as long as the end users could only run Windows to run their applications. (or something like that. It's been a while) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/17/ms_legal_threat_d... That sort of thing is probably happenning with Apple stuff also. I would expect that Apple has similar things about applications targetting their platform running on Linux. It's all pretty stupid and is why you either want to be fully legal by licensing stuff from people like Fluendo.. or just ignore the laws completely and do what you want (like the vast majority of people) What you choose to do depends on the sort of liability you would be faced with. :)
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 3, 2007 14:57 UTC (Sat) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
Actually, codecs are good arguments against software patents. The encoded data is distributed worldwide, to users of different software. Some users receive both the software and the data on physical media and cannot download additional codecs. The benefit for the society is not to have interoperability issues.For software patents to be justified, you would need to show that nobody would make a comparably good codec in absence of software patents, and that the advantage of the codecs developed under the software patent regime would offset the disadvantages for the society, such as compatibility issues and inability of others to improve existing codecs.
Mind you, once the patented codecs are popular, it's hard to replace them with non-patented ones. The new codec would have to be substantially better, but it may be mathematically impossible.
Simply put, is mp3 so much better than ogg that all Fedora users have to pay price for that?
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 3, 2007 15:33 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
I may miss your point, but mp3 is not better than ogg. ogg with an order of magnitude less development effort has managed to exceed the quality of mp3 within a very impressive bitrate range. The nature of encoder tuning is such that quality is a laborious process occurring over months and years, not just a brief stroke of innovation. That ogg has managed to do better than mp3 in approximately the 40kbps to 180kbps range with about 3 developers speaks volumes. In its category, mp3 is not an impressive codec. It is about the worst of its kind. However it was the first, and by dint of effort it is about the most polished (in terms of available encoder quality), and it is pseudo-open due to these factors, open source implementations, and reasonably good published specifications. Then there are all the fringe benefits: efficient silence encode, sane metadata, no onerous requirements for detection of bit-shift errors by decoders, built-in multi-channel. So I suppose a support for your footnote about being substantially better. It is better, but not enough.
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 3, 2007 17:03 UTC (Sat) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
OK, "better" includes "first to come". Suppose the software patents didn't exist. When would a first mp3-quality codec appear? Maybe a year later (just guessing). So, the early adopters would not have a good sound encoder for one year. But, chances are the emerging format would be better supported by the software. Chances are the whole number of incompatible codecs (think wma, aac, ogg) would not exist. Chances are that free software would have good support for all major codes out-of-the-box. And those trying to improve sound encoding would not try to avoid the ideas found in the existing popular codecs, thus making it easier to make a significant improvement that could succeed commercially.Thus, in the long (5-10 years) term, the public would be better served without software patents, even if the original developers would not be as motivated to come with the initial implementation.
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 4, 2007 21:49 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]
Your example is not valid, but just because the MP3 innovation did happen without software patents. In fact the codec was invented on this side of the Atlantic. Revenue has come largely from hardware implementations (which can be patented), I believe. I don't see great innovation coming from Fraunhofer nowadays, as a result of all that money, or from other licensors.
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 4, 2007 23:52 UTC (Sun) by job (subscriber, #670) [Link]
Well, patents or no patents juridically, lots of things surrounding the MP3 encoding algorithm was somehow patented anyway even in Europe. So it's not a clear cut case of innovation "without software patents". That said, I personally firmly believe the world would be much better off without them. The number one problem right now is the lack of standards, everywhere in the IT sector. And patents are what slows them and encourages competing standards. Even if we would have had to wait an extra year for compressed music to appear, it would have been _so_ worth it.
software patents and data formats
Posted Nov 4, 2007 17:22 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Codecs are the perfect example of why there should be NO patents on software ideas. Patents are supposed to encourage "lateral innovation". I.e. by blocking off one way of doing something, they encourage others to find new ways of doing that same way. This should lead to improved ways of doing things. This is worth zero for data formats. If the job is to display a certain format, lateral innovation is impossible. Writing software that would display some other format simply won't get the job done and isn't worth working on. Your argument seems to be based on an idea that patents exist to help people profit from research. This isn't the case, but even if it was, it fails for data formats for another reason: Imagine I invest ten million Euro into developing a data format that's better than Microsoft's. If I can patent it, Microsoft will simply not use it. If no one uses my format, it and its patent are worthless. Data formats aren't made valuable by of their features. They're made valuable by having a relationship with (or being) those who own the channels of communication. More info on software patents: http://ciaran.compsoc.com/software-patents.html
Codec Buddy in Fedora 8
Posted Nov 3, 2007 15:47 UTC (Sat) by jpick (subscriber, #29470) [Link]
I like this approach. Patented codecs suck, of course. But if you can buy an unbundled codec for a popular format, for $5-10, and use it until the patents expire (in up to 20 years), on a free system -- then that's not so bad, particularly if there are only a limited number of codecs to buy. Unfortunately, there is still going to be content that will be restricted to playing on fully end-to-end DRM'd systems (eg. Vista or Mac OS X). eg. BBC content. That sucks. Hopefully consumers will get fed up and reject that.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 4, 2007 14:57 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
I fail to understand how replacing good free software code by bad non-free and non-gratis code can be a good thing nor any kind of improvement. Clearly Fluendo has an agenda here. If Fedora is fearful of distributing free software codecs, it should provide easy means to obtain them externally, not compromise its free software ideals by helping to distribute proprietary software.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 4, 2007 15:15 UTC (Sun) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
Because it's not a question of "free" vs "non-free" -- it's a question of "legal" or "illegal". The same legal restrictions that prevent them from distributing "free" codecs also prevent them from pointing users to an external distributor of "free" codecs. codec-buddy is a means to point people to a place where they can *legally* obtain these codecs. Unlike copyright law, patents protect ideas independent of implementation.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 4, 2007 18:47 UTC (Sun) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link]
Because it's not a question of "free" vs "non-free" -- it's a question of "legal" or "illegal".
But an "legal" or "illegal" question shouldn't be solved by ignoring the "free" vs "non-free" question.
Distributing (or at least pushing) non-free software is as bad as doing illegal stuff. So if there is absolutely no solution to achieve "legal" and "freedom" than you shouldn't go for one of them by neglect the other one.
Also there was at least an option to point to third party repositories with free codecs: "It appears as a result of this decision we might be able to point to a third party repository as a alternative to the Fluendo codecs.".
But it seems like nobody really looked at this way.
Beside the problem of pushing non-free software you can read in the interview that they want to integrate the "webshop-feature" even more tightly into Fedora. So Fedora will come with active advertisement to purchase non-free software from a commercial company. I don't like commercial advertising in my software/operating-system and especially i don't like advertising for commercial non-free software.
I hope Fedora will try to find another way. If they can't find another way they should go one step back and do nothing. They don't do illegal things just for freedom and if they take their free software standpoint serious they also shouldn't do non-free things just be be legal. Take law and freedom serious. Both or nothing!
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 4, 2007 20:15 UTC (Sun) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
>Beside the problem of pushing non-free software you can read in the >interview that they want to integrate the "webshop-feature" even more >tightly into Fedora. So Fedora will come with active advertisement to >purchase non-free software from a commercial company. I don't like >commercial advertising in my software/operating-system and especially i >don't like advertising for commercial non-free software. Fluendo wants to do that. I can assure you that Fedora does not. For a better depiction of the fedora project board's opinion on codec buddy see this article: http://www.linux.com/feature/120703 Seth Vidal Fedora Project Board Member
Since you're in a position to know
Posted Nov 5, 2007 4:17 UTC (Mon) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]
Seth Vidal
Fedora Project Board Member
So what does that EULA say? May the end user pay Fluendo their 30 pieces of silver... and use an open source implementation to play MPEG files?
Since you're in a position to know
Posted Nov 5, 2007 4:30 UTC (Mon) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
>So what does that EULA say? May the end user pay Fluendo their 30 pieces of >silver... and use an open source implementation to play MPEG files? the user can use whatever the user wants. codeina/codec buddy is a pretty simple implementation. If gstreamer hits a codec it can't handle it'll popup a box for you. The box is just a view to an xml file that points out some possible codecs which are available which can solve this problem. It could, optionally, point to a place to install a package from another repo or any other set of things. Since fluendo worked on the code it points to their site by default. Fedora doesn't have a place to legally point users to for accessing mp3s other than fluendo. Their free-as-in-beer mp3 codec allows users to play/access mp3s on their system. That's it. Does that answer your question?
Since you're in a position to know
Posted Nov 5, 2007 4:49 UTC (Mon) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]
Does that answer your question?
It does, thank you.
In that case Codec Buddy could be a plus for those who want their computers
to be squeaky clean in the eyes of the law
and
to run free-as-in-Libre software.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 13:25 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
> Fluendo wants to do that. I can assure you that Fedora does not. Then why, pray tell, is Fedora becoming Fluendo's minion and helping their business model based on non-free software?
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 13:44 UTC (Mon) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
>Then why, pray tell, is Fedora becoming Fluendo's minion and helping their >business model based on non-free software? The feature of codeina is useful. Being able to prompt people about codecs they need and explaining to them what the story is with codecs is a good idea. Selling the closed-source codecs is, in my personal opinion, a bad idea. However, the problem is this - we have a lot of people who want to use linux who find not having codecs available easily (even for-pay ones) a real roadblock. So the question becomes: Do we keep users off our platform b/c we don't legally have codecs they need or do we tell them where to get the codecs legally and keep them on the platform, while at the same time telling them about the problems with software patents and the issues we face dealing with these codecs. Fedora opted for the latter, for now. -sv
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 4, 2007 20:18 UTC (Sun) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
>Also there was at least an option to point to third party repositories with >free codecs: "It appears as a result of this decision we might be able to >point to a third party repository as a alternative to the Fluendo codecs.". >But it seems like nobody really looked at this way. We have been looking. Specifically, we've been getting legal to look to figure out if this is possible. Rahul might be right but he's not a lawyer and we're not going to bet a contributory-infringement suit on someone who is not legal counsel. -sv
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 4, 2007 22:36 UTC (Sun) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link]
>We have been looking. Specifically, we've been getting legal to look to figure out if this is possible.
And what was the result? I couldn't find anything about it at the mailing lists.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 2:14 UTC (Mon) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
Still waiting is the result, unfortunately. -sv
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 0:18 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
No, this is very much an issue of free vs. non-free software. The question of legality is pure FUD. Software patents apply to much more than just multimedia codecs. For some reason distros are not afraid to ship the Linux kernel even though it is known to infringe on a multitude of software patents. Right now Red Hat is the target of a software patent lawsuit not related to multimedia. So what are we going to see next? Installers for proprietary window managers? Web browsers? Printer drivers? Editors? All available for a few $$$ and guaranteed to have patent extortion money already covered? I am sick of seeing free software ideals being tossed out the window when it comes to multimedia. Suddenly nobody complains about being told to run only approved software on their machines, even though everybody would cry bloody murder if they were told to run only, say, approved operating systems. Obviously Fluendo has an agenda and directly profits from this nonsense. It is a shame to see Fedora become a part of this.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 8:19 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
The question of legality is pure FUD.I'm quite sure Fedora consulted lawyers about that.
Suddenly nobody complains about being told to run only approved software on their machinesAs for "nobody complains", you probably need to read other comments. As for "being told", I'll rather take that than "being forced".
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 12:42 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
>> The question of legality is pure FUD. >I'm quite sure Fedora consulted lawyers about that. And even if they hadn't, it doesn't exactly take much work to find that the holders of MP3 patents have been actively suing people who incorporate support without the proper licenses. MPEG[|2|4] has seen similar lawsuits. dvdcss has seen someone get successfully sued for merely *linking* to the code, to say nothing of actual distribution. (And that wasn't even about patents!) FUD? Hardly.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 13:11 UTC (Mon) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Please point me to the relevant lawsuits, thank you. You can consult lawyers about many things and if you consult different lawyers they will tell you different things. Plus, if there is a remote chance of a problem, it will get pointed out to you. That's a bit like asking a physicist if it's possible that a meteroid hits you on the head. It *is* possible. Now do you keep peering at the sky while you walk around outside? No, you do not. You are confusing DeCSS, libcss and libdvdcss. These things achieve similar things through different means, but only DeCSS has been the target of lawsuits. And the defendants came out squeaky clean... Also, you guys keep dodging an important point: Software patents cover much more than just multimedia, so why is multimedia treated specially? Red Hat itself is the target of a lawsuit related to window manager technology. Why is Fedora not afraid to redistribute window managers? Where is the WMBuddy?
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 14:31 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
You're right in that 'DeCSS' was the subject of the lawsuit, but the difference between it and libdvdcss is irrelevant given that it was about decryption -- or rather, circumventing access controls -- which both do. http://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html Far from being "squeaky clean", the defendants *lost* -- 'plantiffs are entitled to appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief' That was through the DMCA, rather than patents, but at its core it's still about the control of an idea rather than a specific implementation of an idea. What makes multimedia special is that there are powerful interests behind the scenes with a vested interest in keeping the status quo, and thus there's a great deal of money on the table. Where there's money, there's [the threat of] litigation. All of the recent mp3 lawsuit links I've come up with are from third parties claiming additional patent rights over and above what Thompson wants. Wikipedia has a decent summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing_and_patent_issues In any case, Thompson wants $0.75 per decoder or $1.25 for a full codec. Multiply that by three for willful infringement, and then again by the number of Fedora installations (in the US, at least), and that's a lot of direct exposure for RedHat should they include an unlicensed mp3 decoder in Fedora, or possibly even just link to one. To say nothing of the recent third-party trolling going on.. With the CodecBuddy thing, Redhat can both cover their asses legally, and provide an user-friendly option for the users that demand a legal (ie properly-licensed) mp3 codec. Software Patents suck. F/OSS software normally just ignores them altogether (which is generally the sanest strategy, both legally and practically) In the case of multimedia, there's no way one can claim ignorance when the specs themselves mention the patents and their licensing requirements. The nice thing about CodecBuddy is that if Redhat's lawyers determine that they can legally link to a third-party repository to provide a F/OSS codec, it's a trivial change to make.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 7, 2007 22:50 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
You are right, I forgot about the 2600 case. I was just thinking of DVD Jon, who was sued at home in Norway but cleared of all charges and the appeal was thrown out. Then there were the Bunner and Pavlovich cases in which the defendants prevailed: http://w2.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/ Note that these cases ended much later than 2600. We have not seen another day in court for CSS circumvention since then. I believe the interested parties fear they might lose again and prefer to leverage FUD to attain their goals. There is an important difference between libdvdcss and DeCSS. DeCSS is based on a player key that was leaked out to the internet, while libdvdcss simply brute-forces the (weak) encryption and subsequently caches the key. libdvdcss was never the target of a lawsuit to the best of my knowledge and I believe that it would fare better than DeCSS.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 5, 2007 14:32 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
Multimedia is not treated specially. RSA patent on its public key encryption algorithm was treated seriously. So was the GIF patent. But the JPEG patent was ignored. Some patents have strong backing, while others are just bogus and wound not stand in court.The problem specific to multimedia is that there is big money involved, so the opponents would have good lawyers. And it's not helping that the patent holders are often the companies that actually developed the codecs.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 6, 2007 13:25 UTC (Tue) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]
The program though, asserts as FACT that the mentioned codecs require patent-licensing. I don't think it's in RedHats or OSS interest to help spread that claim. Some of the codecs -MAY- require patent-licensing in -certain- jurisdicitons, but that is a quite different statement. If you're in a no-sw-patent jurisdiciton, Codec-buddy is still going to helpfully inform you that you need a license. Which is plain and simple not true.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 6, 2007 15:09 UTC (Tue) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
>If you're in a no-sw-patent jurisdiciton, Codec-buddy is still going to >helpfully inform you that you need a license. Which is plain and simple not >true. If you are willing to submit patches to codec-buddy/codeina which figure out where you are and do or do not output the warnings based on that information I think they would probably be accepted. The problem is figuring out all the places where these patents matter. It's not _just_ the US anymore. -sv
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 6, 2007 15:51 UTC (Tue) by jfj (guest, #37917) [Link]
Right! Also, there is the misinformation in this article that the *user* is illegal and may go to jail or something. Illegal (according to US courts) is the one who is selling mp3 encoders in the US (and parts of the world) without having paid patent fees. Patent problems are cofused with copyright infrigment. I do not believe that linking to ffmpeg is a patent violation like linking to pirated content is copyright infigment. And probably fedora's lawyers could argue that they are not even selling mp3 encoders, simply distributing free software and selling support. Someone can get the impression that Fedora is either pushed in the corner with the recent Novell deals, or in it for some kind of profit.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 6, 2007 16:00 UTC (Tue) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link]
It has nothing to do with selling anything. It only has to do with distribution. Also the user is not in danger of any kind but if fedora distributed anything covered under those patents then red hat could get sued into oblivion and then the user would lose his/her vendor of the fedora linux distribution. -sv
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 7, 2007 22:27 UTC (Wed) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
This however, is not what the warning text printed by CodecBuddy implies. It sounds as if the *user* needed a patent license. This is simply not true. The problems are strictly Fedora's, no end user is being harmed nor saved from any kind of harm by being deprived of codec support.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 10, 2007 12:31 UTC (Sat) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]
Are you sure about that?
From Joe Shaw's blog:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/35uscs271.html
U.S. Patent Act
..Part III. Patents and Protection of Patent Rights
….Chapt. 28. Infringement of Patents
“Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USCS Sects. 1 et seq.], whoever without authority makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.”
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 8, 2007 9:39 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]
That can't be done. There's no foolproof way of knowing where the user is located, though I guess the country that the user *claimed* to be from earlier in the installation-process would be a reasonable first guess. My suggestion would be simply to change the text -- for ALL users -- so that it says the equivalent of; "licensing of codecs may be required in some jurisdictions", rather than todays blanket-statement that it IS required full stop, no qualifications, which is just plain wrong.
This is the wrong approach...
Posted Nov 8, 2007 9:53 UTC (Thu) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Seconded. It's also not hard to list the affected jurisdictions. To the best of my knowledge that list would be rather short: USA.