Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
RealNetworks launches Helix Player project
RealNetworks has announced the launch of the "Helix Player" project - an effort to create "a comprehensive open source media player" for Linux and Unix systems. It appears that, to be truly "comprehensive," this player will still require binary plugins for the RealAudio and RealVideo formats, however.
(Log in to post comments)
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 16:48 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Dear Free Software Community,Please do not ignore this. RealNetworks wants to sell more software. They cannot do this unless people develop software for them. Don't just shrug this off and say "Ah, someone else will do it". RealNetworks may have enought money for a 100 staffers but they cannot afford to develop their own products. It's in *your* interests. In return for your zero-cost labour, RealNetworks will provide the community will a useless hunk of code and permit you to further their streaming dominance by popularising their format. Be a contributor, write some code for them. Yours Drunkenly, ha ha, only serious :)
Netscape asked for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 17:26 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] As I see it, we have two choices: we can refuse to help Real, and let Windows Media Player totally dominate, to the point where Linux users can no longer access audio or video information on the web. Or we can work with Real, keeping the pressure on to open up more and more of their system, substituting free codecs for proprietary codecs as much as possible. We're seeing a repeat of Netscape/Mozilla: the once dominant player is being out-competed by Microsoft and is now asking the open source community for help. Either they get the help, or they go under. There are certainly reasons to be suspicious. But I think it's better to engage with them, all the time keeping up the pressure to open up more.
Netscape asked for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 17:46 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > I think it's better to engage with them, all the time keeping> up the pressure It's a tough call. RealNetwork's current business model relys on keeping the codec a secret. The company would have to reinvent itself if they were to consider becoming an actual part of the community. Helping them with zero-pay labour is kinda like offering them credit, I'm just not sure they'll be able to pay it back. Our other option is to help the Vorbis Theora team. They're Free Sofware from the start. (Before people point out that they use BSD license instead of GPL, they did this with RMS's consultation. Software freedom is the goal, the GPL is usually our best contract, but the BSD license has it's uses.) I think the offerings of RealNetworks are too small to justify real interest. Mozilla became GPL with a little pressure because the GPL was compatible with the goals of the Mozilla project. Ciaran O'Riordan
Grant program Posted Aug 7, 2003 8:53 UTC (Thu) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] We're offering a grant program as well, which is $75,000 offered by the end of the year. Details here. That's not "zero sum".We hired one of the developers that contributed some of the code to Helix Player (Ryan Gammon). His resume may not have necessarily stood out from the pack otherwise. We made a cash grant to Xiph.org for developement of an Ogg Vorbis plugin for the Helix DNA Client. I would imagine that we would give more money for future Ogg Vorbis/Theora/Speex projects as well. So cut us a break already. Rob
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 17:40 UTC (Wed) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] Dear Ciaran<sarcastic_rant> If you think the code we've contributed to the community is useless, you wouldn't be alone in underestimating how difficult it is to develop a comprehensive media delivery system. We've contributed a substantial amount of very useful code to the community, and a lot of people are discovering this. I wish you would find a more constructive use of your time than trash talking us in this forum. Rob Lanphier
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 18:02 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Hi Robla,I'm glad to hear you imply that there is at least one free software advocate in there. When this/these free software advocate(s) convince the company to release the codec, I'll be a happy chappy, and will become a RealNetworks advocate (I do post complementary things about MySQL AB, now there's a free software company to rely on!) I dislike RealNetwork's current strategy. The streaming duopoly they have (M$ being the other streamer) allows for consumer lock-in and requires users that want to view streamed video to install proprietary software. Releasing fringe code doesn't change this situation. > I wish you would find a more constructive use of your time Don't worry, it didn't take me long :) Ciaran O'Riordan
Aim gun at foot.... Posted Aug 6, 2003 18:24 UTC (Wed) by cdibona (subscriber, #13739) [Link] For me it's a measure of thier seriousness that they are releasing more code all the time, rather than locking more and more down, which I see as a positive. To constantly question the motives of good works tends to disincentivise companies like real from release more code.I should also point out that real is hardly holding a gun to anyone's head and making anyone use their software (the free bits or the proprietary bits). If you really want free codecs then your time is best spent promoting Xiphs work and frankly doing what you can to enable real to expose whatever code they can, and it looks like you are trying to punish real for trying to make more code free. Chris DiBona chris@dibona.com I should also point out htat I do trust Rob's motives. So long as he's attached to the project, I'd give Real the benifit of the doubt.
Aim gun at foot.... Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:44 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Amen, brother.I find reprehensible the idea that FOSS developers are campaigning in any way to keep folks from joining other FOSS software projects. This is what FOSS development is all about? I see that Mozilla has entered the discussion. I'll remind folks that Mozilla came years after Netscape's proprietary browsers had made a name for themselves, and I'll also remind folks that the opening of the source code did NOT come easilly, nor was it GPL'd quickly. You can't always flip a switch and make something proprietary into a free or open source project. For all we know, RealNetworks doesn't own 100% of their codecs so they can't open up their source code (I am reminded of Caldera's Netware client, which lots of folks pounded on Caldera to open source but was actually licensed from Novell who -- at the time -- had no desire to allow the source code to be released).
Aim gun at foot.... Posted Aug 6, 2003 21:39 UTC (Wed) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link] > I find reprehensible the idea that FOSS developers are campaigning in any> way to keep folks from joining other FOSS software projects. Heh, yeah, that's never happened before. :)
Aim gun at foot.... Posted Aug 7, 2003 2:44 UTC (Thu) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Yep, it's happened before... Does that make it right?
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 18:06 UTC (Wed) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link] Difficult, but definitely not impossible. MPEG4IP, which is sponsored by Cisco to promote open standards for video streaming, and it works very well, and is completely open-source (codecs and all).http://mpeg4ip.sourceforge.net/ Combine this with Apple's open-source (but not quite free) Darwin Streaming Server http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streaming/ and the great VideoLan client http://www.videolan.org/vlc/, and you have a more-or-less completly open-source, cross-platform video and audio streaming solution.
No patent grant with MPEG4IP Posted Aug 11, 2003 6:36 UTC (Mon) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] You'll notice that MPEG4IP does not grant any patent rights. There's a reason for that...they can't. Cisco (the sponsor behind MPEG4IP) doesn't have the patent rights to do that.Distributing software for which all of the intellectual property is yours to give is very difficult. A big reason why we don't distribute the source code for RealAudio and RealVideo is that it isn't ours to give. We've licensed portions from other companies (e.g. Intel, VoiceAge, and Sony). Rob
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 18:17 UTC (Wed) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link] Rob: Do you really not see why RealNetworks has a bad name for itself with us? Perhaps instead of mindless name-calling, you could try refuting points and offering evidence...
What namecalling? Posted Aug 7, 2003 8:46 UTC (Thu) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] I'm confused. Where did I resort to namecalling? What do you want evidence of?
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 6, 2003 23:53 UTC (Wed) by newren (subscriber, #5160) [Link] Ciaran,I greatly respect your devotion to free software and I share your desire to see it proliferate. I have read many of your comments of the past months and years, and I am glad to see others with such a strong commitment to the principles of the free software community. However, I have also been reminded of the saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." (For those not familiar with old sayings/proverbs, see http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/youcancatchm.html). Would it not be possible to engage Real Networks and congratulate them for the positive steps they are taking and encourage them to take more, rather than criticize them for the steps they have not yet taken? Elijah
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 7, 2003 4:14 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Hi Elijah,Thanks for the kind words. It's worth extending a warm hand when we can build beneficial relationships with companies, so, what's my beef with RealNetworks? They have one thing that we'd really like: the streaming codec. Their business model relys on them being the only people that can use the codec, so why should we believe that we'll eventually get it (if we're nice to them)? The only use we can make of the rest of their software is to build a competing system using our own codec. Why would they give us all the tools just to compete with them? sounds iffy. The GPL is our cornerstone but they've decided to write their own incompatible license (4 licenses actually). If they want to work with the community, what's wrong with the community's license? Netscape wrote it's own license for Mozilla but they gave us a complete, useful, sought after piece of software. Are any of the RealNetworks licenses Free Software licenses? From a quick read of their most-free license, the RPSL, I'd say no, but I don't want to have to read licenses. If RealNetworks released all their code under the RPSL, I'd try to work with them, hoping it would be fully free one day, but they're throwing us snippets with press releases. So far, I don't see a credible effort to really work with the free software community, so when they keep making press releases, I think it's important to inform the community of the issues RealNetworks are not mentioning. Ciaran O'Riordan
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 7, 2003 4:35 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] hmm, after crystalising my beef with them I suppose my very first post should have been a factual/informational post about their licenses and lack of believable motivations.small note:
Simple motivation Posted Aug 7, 2003 8:43 UTC (Thu) by robla (subscriber, #424) [Link] Roughly half of RealNetworks' revenue these days comes from selling subscription services for paid content, with over a million paying subscribers. This part of our business has been growing faster than our software sales. One limiting factor to that business is getting support on different devices. Since there's going to be platforms that we won't recognize as commercially viable until after the smart hackers have figured it out, we're better off empowering them to port to whatever platforms they want to, and let the market sort it out.We still have a software sales business, though, so we can't give it all away. However, over time, we can give away more and more. In the meantime, we make money, the community gets more code over time. I have a hard time figuring out who loses here. Rob
Simple motivation Posted Aug 7, 2003 18:16 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > revenue these days comes from selling subscription services [...]> This part of our business has been growing faster than our software sales Y'see. That's part of the problem. RealNetworks revenue is increasingly relying on the codec not being free. > we're better off empowering them to port to whatever platforms they want to and that's one of the nasty parts of RealNetworks licenses. They permit the community to develop RealNetworks code, but RealNetworks code can't be added to our software (because it's incompatible with the GPL). > the community gets more code over time Not unless the license changes. > I have a hard time figuring out who loses here A lot of confusion is generated. All the community gestures are made, many people don't have the interest to read the licenses. Many people think that "RealPlayer" is OpenSource. This has been implied by the RealNetworks press releases but it's simply not true and it distracts people from the actual free software streaming projects like gstreamer.net and theora.org. Ciaran O'Riordan
Simple motivation Posted Aug 7, 2003 20:08 UTC (Thu) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Many people think that "RealPlayer" is OpenSource. This has been implied by the RealNetworks press releases but it's simply not true I didn't infer that from the press release. They do use the term "binary" when referring to the codecs. The RPSL, it may be noted is on the list of approved licenses at opensource.org. and that's one of the nasty parts of RealNetworks licenses. They permit the community to develop RealNetworks code, but RealNetworks code can't be added to our software (because it's incompatible with the GPL). I see this as one of the great shortcomings of the GPL, actually [*], and one which I think the RPSL did a fine job of avoiding. License "compatibility" is a two-way street, you know. I would actually say that the RPSL is compatible with the GPL, but the GPL does not reciprocate. I suppose it's ultimately a matter of semantics, but if you read the RPSL you notice that it goes out of its way to avoid the license compatibility problems that characterise strong copyleft licenses. [*]That's right, I'm a heretic who believes the GPL has flaws. As far as your statement "RealNetworks code can't be added to our software" - it most certainly can. If I wanted something in my software that was RPSL-licensed, having read the RPSL, I would have no qualms about adding an author's exception stating as much. I think what you meant to say was "RealNetworks code can't be added to someone else's GPL-licensed software without the author's explicit permission. Not quite the same thing, you see. Try as I might I just can't picture RN as the bad guy here. I've got issues with the RPSL (as I've posted before) but frankly, in my opinion "is the GPL compatible with this license" as a litmus test is a bit one-sided.
Simple motivation Posted Aug 7, 2003 23:26 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] me> Many people think that "RealPlayer"me> is OpenSource. This has been implied me> by the RealNetworks press releases pe> I didn't infer that from the press release First line of press release: On incompatiblity Whether you think GPL is perfect or not, it's our cornerstone, not to be ignored lightly. I read the RPSL, it does go out of it's way to ensure that other peoples code can be added to RealPlayers software, but RealNetworks made the decision to make it incompatible with the GPL, people cannot incorporate RPSL code into existing GPL software without getting the author(s) to add a special exemption. The GPL was drafted to solve the problem of compatibility. That's what the G stands for. Being compatible is easy, just use the GPL. > I'm a heretic who believes the GPL has flaws That's okay, but I think it was arrogant of RN to believe they could do better and expect the community to bend to their requirements. Ciaran O'Riordan
Simple motivation Posted Aug 8, 2003 5:50 UTC (Fri) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Whether you think GPL is perfect or not, it's our cornerstone, not to be ignored lightly. First off, who is the "we" in "our"? I don't consider the GPL my cornerstone, even though I use v2 in most of the code I write. I have no problems contributing to projects that use other open source licenses - I don't consider such projects impure, or second-class citizens. Also, I'm pretty sure Real didn't "ignore" the GPL. In fact, they mention it inside the RPSL! It simply didn't fit their perceived needs, specifically in terms of patent use grants and related language. The RPSL is actually very similar to the GPL in spirit. You know who you really sound like? Microsoft. (Yes, I know, corollary to Godwin's Law.) They love free software, you know, so long as its license is BSD-like. Because then they can reuse the software. They look at the GPL and say "we don't like this license, because it is not compatible with our own licenses, and we can't take your GPL code and integrate it with our products. You should change your license to have fewer restrictions, otherwise your code is useless to us." Which is exactly what you are telling Real about their license. Never mind if you think your request is "more reasonable" than Microsoft's - the difference is in degree, not kind. I think it was arrogant of RN to believe they could do better and expect the community to bend to their requirements. OK, well, I think it's arrogant of you to tell Real that the GPL is the be-all and end-all of free software licenses, and that their offering is unacceptible if it contains any restrictions, however slight, not found in your all-hallowed L. I mean, look at it objectively for a moment, if you think you're up to it. The RPSL says "you may combine this code with any free software you want, where free software is defined as software using any of the following 30 licenses". The GPL says "you may combine this code with any free software you like, so long as everything is under this one exact license." Once again, "license incompatibility" is a 2-way street. Maybe one license doesn't meet all the needs in the world. Maybe there is one license restriction out there that actually makes sense to Real Networks but which RMS (am I supposed to add "may he live forever"?) did not include in his watershed legal document 12 years ago. Given that possibility, I think Real has met the community more than halfway. As a footnote, let me publicly thank Real Networks for coming up the RPSL section 4.2 and Exhibit B - I intend to add similar language to the license arrangements of any free software I hold significant copyrights to, assuming I can find a good, unobtrusive way to do so. (Yes, I'm talking GPLv2 projects here.)
RealNetworks asks for hand outs Posted Aug 7, 2003 16:03 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."Yeah, but you can catch even more with horse manure (see just about any /. thread for examples). Meditate on that for a while. ;-)
RealNetworks launches Helix Player project Posted Aug 6, 2003 17:40 UTC (Wed) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] I have no problem with RealNetworks digging into the whole Open Source thing (although I did have a few problems with the GPL-ish EULA they invented for the purpose), but I would really like to see an explanation of how the Helix DNA platform is so much better than established efforts such as GStreamer. Otherwise I am inclined to believe it is mere NIH. And speaking of Helix DNA, can anyone summarise just what they have accomplished in the 9 months since the source was released? (Besides the online community of 20000 members, mentioned in the press release.)
RealNetworks launches Helix Player project Posted Aug 6, 2003 19:47 UTC (Wed) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link] I'm entirely grateful to Real for their support of Linux. I'm employed at a University and we have produced and released a quarter million lines of GPL'ed code. I love GPL, yay GPL.But! I'm also entirely willing to pay Real for their support of Linux, and to use material that is out there on the web in Real's format. Do I look forward to OGG producing a robust, patent-free, unencumbered video codec and distribution system? Heck yes! Do I highly value Real's efforts to develop the whole concept of streaming media (I remember running the first RealAudio Player on a Solaris system here I believe 8+ years ago, back when doing TCP/IP at all on a Windows system was kind of iffy), and to push it along with marketing and development dollars? Heck yes! To date, Real has been the only company to provide any kind of even semi-decent streaming media player support for Linux. They have my gratitude, my dollars (if/when they ever decide to take them for a high quality player), and my advocacy.
RealNetworks launches Helix Player project Posted Aug 7, 2003 14:10 UTC (Thu) by doodaddy (guest, #10649) [Link] My two cents: I'd be more inclined to "trust" RealNetworks and their motives if their Windows RealPlayer didn't poke it's tentacles so deeply into my system. I want to download a player and a codec. Instead, I get channels, system tray updating doo-hickeys, news and radio station pendants all over the window, sneaky double-negative options to not turn off system update automatically... If there is a questionable "trick" to get my "Mom" to give up her privacy and screen space, they do it. I feel no control and I cringe when I find stuff like this on my Mom's computer. If I'm not remembering exactly what is in RealPlayer it's because I deleted it a while ago. I'll just do without those streams. (The same goes for WMP greater than 6.0)The Mozilla license, conversely, came with an application that had always been as friendly as possible. So, you may ask, what does RealNetworks do to make cash with just a codec and maybe a player? Not my problem. Businesses serve a purpose and that's it. When the charter is up, people move on with their skills. I don't see a need to prop up an antiquated company. The sneaky tactics just make it worse and typically mark the end. This is my vote for ignoring proprietary video codecs with questionable advantages over a solid, open source format. We just need a format (or two) and players for Unix, Windows, and Mac -- on the desktop and through the web browsers. Do you think your favorite pr0n site would bother with WMP if they had a free encoder? I think they would even buy one to create to a free standard where everyone got the player without being overwhelmed with spyware. Thanks for listening!
|
|||||||||||