| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
RealNetworks asks for hand outsRealNetworks asks for hand outsPosted Aug 6, 2003 23:53 UTC (Wed) by newren (guest, #5160)In reply to: RealNetworks asks for hand outs by coriordan Parent article: RealNetworks launches Helix Player project 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
(Log in to post comments)
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 (guest, #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. ;-)
|
|
||||||||||||