Advertisement
Aztek Networks. Linux, C++ developers wanted. Embedded, Power-PC target.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions pageSponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
(Log in to post comments)
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 1:41 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Somewhat more interesting is the stuff about the Google relationship. It looks like Fedora were interested in getting paid for all the people they (by setting the default in the Firefox browser included in Fedora) send to Google's search engine. But that deal didn't work out, so then it's a question of whether to change the default. This will require very careful handling, it will be interesting to see whether (if anything does come out of such discussions) the Fedora board know how to present what they're doing without annoying too many people. There's also a weird mention of GPL 3b, which I thought everyone had long ago given up trying to use. In this case it seems the concern is a Fedora Ambassador, alone at some event, with a pile of (non-source) Fedora DVDs to give away - he's currently not in compliance. Only takes one smart-ass to say "And I get source code too, right?" and they've got an embarrassing situation. Seems they asked if legally they could make this into a 3b scenario, and were told it's not possible. The fix isn't mentioned, but I guess the options are to send Ambassadors a handful of source DVDs to give to smart-asses or a heap of leaflet format GPL 3b offers to hand out with each Fedora binary DVD (ugh).
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 3:00 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
Fedora could fix this by just including on the DVD the required written offer for how to get the source. It could give two options:Option 1: download the source from a server.
Option 2: instructions for mail-ordering a source CD or DVD. For example, it could require that the orderer include a self-addressed mailer with proper postage, together with money to cover the expense of the blank medium and a small amount for the person's time spent burning the disk and getting it in the mail.
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 4:27 UTC (Tue) by mdomsch (subscriber, #5920) [Link]
JoeBuck: GPLv2 doesn't allow you to satisfy 3b) by placing the code on a server if you've put binaries on physical media, or so the FSF individuals we've spoken with claim. (GPLv3 does address this point). The bigger problem, which even GPLv3 doesn't address, is that each "distribution" - someone handing out a CD to someone else, if done on behalf of the Fedora Project (we can get into legal discussions of if someone is an "Agent" of the Fedora Project or not, or if that matters here) resets the 3b) 3-year clock. We don't know when the last time such are handed out, so we don't know when we can end the offer. We were hoping we could say "Fedora will hand out these DVDs only for 14 months, so 4 years 2 months from now we aren't required to still hand out DVDs with source", but our legal guidance says we can't do that. So our 3b) responsibilities would continue effectively indefinitely. Ensuring that 4+ years down the line someone will exist to burn 4+ year old SRPMS on request without error isn't something we are comfortable guaranteeing. The advice to our Ambassadors is to encourage individuals interested in getting the source to get it from one of the download servers. If they insist on getting it on media, then the Ambassadors should have a DVD burner and blank media on hand. If a lot of people ask for source in this fashion, we would have to consider pressing media with SRPMS to send to shows, which gets quite expensive, and in general is a waste of money. -Matt Domsch, on behalf of the Fedora Project Board
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 5:32 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
You misunderstood what I wrote. I suggested including two options: one to tell people how to download the software, the other to send a stamped, self-addressed envelope and get the source. This satisfies the legal requirement. The option to do the download is intended to reduce the burden, since most people would use the least-hassle method.
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 11:46 UTC (Tue) by mdomsch (subscriber, #5920) [Link]
I understand, the "send a SASE" reduces the need to have a stack of pressed media to mail. It does not reduce the indeterminate end-time of the 3b) clock, meaning we would have to ensure that if someone does send a SASE several years from now (again, could be 4+ years, we don't know and can't set an "end date" on the offer), that someone would exist to receive that SASE, burn the media, and mail it back, without failure to do so or error on their part. We prefer to be done with our legal obligation at the time of distribution, rather than carry the additional obligation for an indefinite time into the future.
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 12:39 UTC (Tue) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]
With a little bit of pre-planning, couldn't you make this process fairly fool-proof? Specifically: 1) Decide to only distribute binary CDs/DVDs of actual Fedora and Enterprise releases, not (say) alpha and beta builds. 2) Generate *.iso files for the corresponding source CDs/DVDs up front. 3) Store the *.iso files on high-reliability storage (a properly backed-up RAID server or something). When somebody asks for source code, just grab and burn the appropriate *.iso. Realistically, this would cost a week of engineering time to set up, and a few hundred dollars a year in RAID drives and server administration. GPL 3b is pretty obnoxious in this day-and-age, but it's not that huge a hassle for anybody with good long-term data storage.
Other stuff from the board meeting...
Posted Mar 18, 2008 14:43 UTC (Tue) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]
Thanks for the further explanation, it was enlightening.
well, there are enough distros out there
Posted Mar 18, 2008 5:25 UTC (Tue) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]
I'd suggest looking more closely at european (and russian) distros to those who thoroughly consider making US brain damage sort of more approved/universal being *wrong*. For one, I use, deploy and participate in ALT Linux which happens to include "real" ffmpeg, mplayer and the rest of the crop -- with no respect to software patents at all but with full respect to copyright. Current desktop release is e.g. here: http://ftp.heanet.ie/mirrors/ftp.altlinux.org/4.0/Desktop... There's 4.0.3RC which includes English-by-default ISO but hasn't yet been announced as the final release (so might change): http://ftp.heanet.ie/mirrors/ftp.altlinux.org/4.0/Desktop... And when you get bored with democracy, welcome to Siberia, there's still enough space for good people and fresh air too :-)
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 12:12 UTC (Tue) by danielhedblom (subscriber, #47307) [Link]
I dont really understand what the problem with Fluendo is. Its just a friendly pointer for those who wish to stay legal and still have access to all media. Its a big difference in education people about their alternatives and to choose for them. Personally i prefer to be educated about all my options and then make my own decisions.
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 15:54 UTC (Tue) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
The problem is that Fedora is pointing people to proprietary alternatives to free software. There is nothing "illegal" about using free software to access all the media you have, your claim is FUD. Fedora claims to be dedicated to free software. If they cannot distribute free software multimedia, tough luck. But at least they should point users to free software solutions where those exist instead of proprietary alternatives.
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 23, 2008 3:31 UTC (Sun) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]
The problem is that Fedora is pointing people to proprietary alternatives to free software. There is nothing "illegal" about using free software to access all the media you have, your claim is FUD.
Sorry, in this case it just isn't this simple. The formats are patented (or at least, all ways of creating/interpreting data files in the format). And unless you have a license from the patent owner, you aren't allowed by law to use the format. The "free software" you mention can't be used legally unless you get the license, and that mostly means that the programs themselves can't be distributed by anyone.
Sure, the validity of said patents depends on jurisdiction, but in Fedora's case the US laws are the ones aplicable. Yes, Red Hat lawyers have looked into this numerous times, and they always advised against including such stuff, or even mentions to places where you can get it.
Besides, such stuff does go against the "only completely free software" ideal of Fedora, so...
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 23, 2008 4:33 UTC (Sun) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]
Well, IANAL, but as I understand it, possession of the source code or binary code that implements a patented algorithm is not illegal. How could it be, since the program is merely an accurate description-which is exactly what a patent application is supposed to be-of the process in question? The alternative is plainly ridiculous, because if an accurate description is a patent violation, then as soon as computer language processing becomes capable of processing patent application language, every document in the patent office becomes either a violation or an invalid patent if it does not accurately describe the process. It only becomes a patent violation when executed on computer hardware, as the algorithm+computer execution is what is actually patented. A site distributing the binary code might be accused of somehow contributing to patent violations I suppose.
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 23, 2008 11:16 UTC (Sun) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
It's very simple: Fluendo offers proprietary alternatives to free software. If Fedora is all for free software they should advertise free software or advertise nothing at all. If your claim was true (which I'm not saying) you/Fedora would still have the choice between proprietary software + restrictive patents or free software + restrictive patents. The choice should be pretty simple. Plus, I stand by my point. There is nothing "illegal" about using free software to access your own media. No court has ever decided otherwise.
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 13:34 UTC (Tue) by bangert (subscriber, #28342) [Link]
Where is ESR when you need him? :-P
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 19:51 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Working on Wesnoth, I think :)
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 14:34 UTC (Tue) by tomd (subscriber, #881) [Link]
Given that a large percentage (> 50%? http://fedoraproject.org/maps/mirrorlist/) of fedora users live in jurisdictions that don't have software patents, perhaps a better solution would be to set up a yum repo hosting FOSS but potentially patent encumbered codecs outside the US. Then simply ask the user at install time if they live somewhere that has software patents, and automatically enable the repo (and maybe install common codecs). Or alternately point them to such repos using Codeina as an alternative to Fluendo's codecs. We're currently getting a very US-centric "solution" to a problem that shouldn't affect non-US users at all. As far as the situation in the US is concerned, I don't see why pointing people to commercial solutions when we're unable to legally provide free ones is a terrible evil, as long as we explain why we're doing it, and let the user decide how true they want to be to the ideals of free software, versus actually viewing the file that they wanted to. We can remain true to our ideals without forcing them on our users by removing their choices. The alternative is an unusable distribution (for these purposes anyway).
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 19:16 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
What is needed is 'non-us' repositories. It worked with Debian and export controls and frankly that is how I learned about the laws back when I was fairly new to the whole free software concept. They can simply have a option: 'Enable access to non-US repositories.*' '* due to a number of immoral laws in the United States (and a handful of other countries following the U.S. example) these packages are not able to be included by default by the Fedora project. Please check your local laws before enabling access to this software. See fedoraproject.org/non-us-policy.html for details' To me this seems a acceptable level of civil disobedience for a free software project based in the USA to take. It protects the project from liability while instantly educating any remotely curious people on how open source software is made illegal. Every single time a person in the US sees that non-us tag float by when using yum they will be reminded about what a serious problem these regulations are. Going silent and simply deleting references to illegal software is not helping anybody out. Fedora should be very loud about why it's not able to provide the highest quality desktop experience possible. It hurts the end user as much as it does the project. As far as I am concerned it's a modern equivalent to banned books.
Fedora 9 to remove pointers to proprietary codecs
Posted Mar 18, 2008 20:44 UTC (Tue) by ofeeley (subscriber, #36105) [Link]
"what's needed is non-US repositories" There are non-US repositories which provide RPM packages of software which potentially runs afoul of US laws. That's not a problem for Fedora users who wish to use such software. They're excellently served by some very capable creators and maintainers mostly based in the EU. The problem is that Red Hat (or the Fedora Project itself ... possibly both?) could be found guilty of contributory infringement just for pointing people to those repositories. This problem doesn't exist for Canonical (incorporated on the Isle of Man IIRC) or for ALT Linux (from Siberia according to the poster above). It will exist for them as soon as, or if, they start trying to do business in the USA. So, as soon as your distribution becomes commercially competitive in one of the major marketplaces the issue will suddenly mean that you are vulnerable to this threat. For any commercial enterprise holding assets in the USA there will remain a problem as long as the USA has laws on the books which stifle innovation and competition.