Fluendo To Sell Proprietary Codecs For Linux 276
Several readers wrote in to tell us that the open source media software development company Fluendo has announced plans to sell native Linux implementations of proprietary video codecs such as Windows Media, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4. (Press release here.) From the article: "Currently, many Linux video applications facilitate Windows Media video playback using Windows DLL files and Wine, which provides suboptimal performance, particularly with streaming video. Fluendo's codecs could potentially provide better integration for streaming Windows Media playback in Linux web browsers as well as through GStreamer-based desktop applications like Totem."
Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:5, Informative)
2) I guess a native binary blob is slightly better than a MS coded binary blob.... but frankly, it's still just a binary blob. You have no idea what its really doing.
Good luck to Fluendo however.
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess the vast majority of end-user couldn't care less what their video codec is doing, as long as it plays their damn video's. It's a bit like the NVidea Linux drivers: the free software purists see it as something awful to load a binary driver on Linux, but I for one am very grateful to have proper 3D accelerated drivers at all. Same goes for video playback... There will always be proprietary video codecs, just get over it. I don't see the problem anyway, if I'm want to run commercial software on Linux it is usually binary as well. Does that mean the software is useless or bad?
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps because of security fears? [rapid7.com]
Anyway, bringing nvidia into the discussion is a red herring, there is a huge difference between running a binary blob in ring 0 and userland. Let's discuss userland binary rather than kernel mode binary.
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No I wasn't trying to make any assertions as to number of people involved, I was just using the numbers 5000 and 5 in regards to the kernel to demonstrate the idea that having loads of manpower involved in something doesn't mean that they can all solve these various problems, there may only be 1 in 1000 that have the experience and knowledge of internal design etc required to fix it. The linux kernel is huge, and bugs
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd think that, wouldn't you? Designing and implementing the software - you're right, in general. But in terms of finding bugs, frequently an outsider does better. It's practically a cliche in programmer circles that the bug you've been fruitlessly hunting for two
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:5, Informative)
You say that as if it were a current problem. This has actually been fixed in the last 3(4?) driver revisions, including a bugfix only release to a previous branch of the drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. If only the other changes included in that revision didn't cause my FreeBSD machine to hang so that I could use the fixed driver, I'd be set.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's better for the public good if the drivers are open.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sometimes I need a feature in software that's not already there. Other times, I need to tinker with some hardcoded value or behavior. (Like the time I needed to modify wget to get around a broken robots.txt.) One time, I wanted to use xvidcap, but found that the latest version of the code was old enough as to not compile on a modern GCC. (I'd be happy to release my updated version, if anyone care
Re: (Score:2)
first
Security, windows biggest problem is trusting binaries not to rip a hole in your security model, why would you want to reduce linux to that level.
Second
to do it better, you can't demand perfection from a commercial programmer but someone will want to tweak a CODEC for maximum performance on his or her hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fluendo = "Streaming Penguin"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's significantly better, actually. Not because it's technically superior (although it may be), but because it can legally be rolled into a commercial version of Linux. Right now, you can't legally distribute a Linux distro with multimedia support (at least not in the U.S.), because they depend either on MS DLLs (obvious copyright problems) or patent-encumbered free implementations (which can't be distributed with the distro for legal reasons).
This makes Linux into a second-rate desktop OS, even if you're willing to pay for it, because it means key features don't work out of the box. There have been exceptions to this from time to time (Xandros, Lindows), but they weren't well accepted by the community, possibly because they tried to leverage their use of proprietary codecs as an advantage over other Linux distros, rather than against Windows -- not a good way to make friends.
A company which wasn't involved in the actual production of a distro, might be in a good position (assuming it dealt with everyone on the same terms) to produce codecs that could be incorporated into (a non-free, pay-per-copy) version of any distro. E.g., someone could take Ubuntu, add the codecs (paying Fluendo, obviously), and sell the result as a package, suitable for pre-installation. I don't think this would violate GPL either, if the codecs were built in a way that didn't require linking or otherwise producing a "derived work."
In short, Fluendo could be in a position to be ESR's "Streaming Penguin." [catb.org] In that paper, he discusses some of the major problems facing Linux as a marketable desktop OS, and the lack of modern multimedia capabilities are a real deal-breaker. In fact, the lack of multimedia capabilities are more of a weakness, than simply being free-as-in-beer is a strength; people are obviously willing to pay for an OS that works, but one that doesn't work out of the box (or works only after fiddling around with some shady instructions involving PLF mirrors) won't fly, even if it's free.
While people here on Slashdot may not regard having to manually install LAME, Xvid, Flash, and the Win32 codecs as a significant problem, it's one of the many reasons why you can't go out and buy a Dell pre-configured with Linux as a home computer. Even if there wasn't Microsoft trying to torpedo it before it gets going, I'm not sure customers would accept anything that didn't work right, right out of the box. Fluendo could, if they play their cards right, be a big benefit to the adoption of Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmmmmmmn, (Score:4, Insightful)
A few things:
a) It is infinitely better than a windows dll because it works (my machine is x86_64. windows blobs won't work there)
b) I don't have windows. How can I get windows binary blobs without buying windows or breaking the law?
c) True, I don't know what it's really doing, but it comes down to trust. I have personally met spoken to some of the fluendo/gstreamer folks and I trust them a hell of a lot more than some unknown devs at MS who I'll never even know the names of let alone meet and talk to.
Re: (Score:2)
> required, but used by xine without wine's help)
>
> 2) I guess a native binary blob is slightly better than a MS coded binary blob.... but frankly, it's still just a
> binary blob. You have no idea what its really doing.
The MS coded blob is illegal to distribute in the format it usually is (w32 codecs pack) in many (most?) countries. So while this Fluendo deal isn't an ideal solut
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who in there right mind would think that releasing proprietory codecs for exactly the same to linux to do the same thing is in any way a good business plan!? If it was encoding these video formats, there may be some merit (eg: better encoding techniques), but playback!? The only possible advantage is it can be used in non-GPL'd programs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm not very excited about paying money for essentially patent licenses. I supposed I'm resigned to being a patent license transgressor rather than monetarily supporting the patent holders. (Of course I also have the option of eschewin
Re: (Score:2)
That makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
*makes popcorn and pops open a beer* (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, well, back to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Correction: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at all the flak NVidia's binary-only drivers take from the GNU-types, and those are FREE.
Don't troll. (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction: Leaked codecs. (Score:3, Insightful)
The "your codecs want to be free" crowd will take care of that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Nvidia is taking flak because the sole reason for the "binary" its own asinine behaviour (same as ATI with the newer Radeon ATI-supplied drivers).
Fluendo intends to provide a service by implementing specs for which the originating party requires a licensing fee.
So the right comparison is not to Nvidia (or ATI for that matter), but to Digium. Digium provides a machine tied (oh what a sacrilege) closed source (oh what a crime) implementation of the g729a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny how people tend to complain once they learn to expect something.
Re:Correction: (Score:4, Insightful)
I can write software and choose to release it open or closed source... that feels pretty free to me.
Erm... nvidia can too.
"Freedom to disagree" anyone? Oh no... it's YOUR way only, that's freedom!
Re: (Score:3)
but? (Score:3)
Tom
Yes, they're part of ffmpeg (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes, they're part of ffmpeg (Score:5, Insightful)
And kudos to ffmpeg team. I use Totem with gstreamer bad/ugly/ffmpeg combo and I can say - hats off to you guys. Quality is very good.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, what other Linux companies require mpeg4 for anything at all?
Re:Yes, they're part of ffmpeg (Score:5, Informative)
The Fluendo stuff could be a good thing if distros would ship with it. Then video would finally work "out of the box". For those like myself who avoid binary blobs and try to only use things that are truely Free will still have the option of using FFMPEG.
Re:Yes, they're part of ffmpeg (Score:4, Interesting)
It also tends to be a bit buggy, with various bugs popping in and out depending on exactly when you check out the code. It also does not have regular released versions like other software.
I just recently had to convert several hundred gigabytes of various videos people have uploaded with varying degrees of success. WMV caused problems, and I cannot get 3gp audio files to decode (possibly due to the fact that I'm running 64-bit.
It also is flakey when dealing with AC-3.
-Aaron
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd probably be legally unable to be as good as MPlayer, (a universal video player, home page [mplayerhq.hu], debs [debian-multimedia.org]), as licensing some codecs will require signing up to agreements to play nicely with DRM. MPlayer is good because there's none of that nonsense: it just works, for every video that I've tried.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That doesn't matter - that's not what this is intended for. It just has to be not much worse than the common alternatives on Windows. Linux has plenty of other advantages that make it a good choice - maintenance alone is far easier for Linux than Windows, for example.
I have much more time to visit with my parents when I'm over now that I've got them switched to Linux. I don't have to keep Windows running anymore. But I couldn't have done it (ther
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Totem/Rhythmbox provides me that. Yeah, I know, anyone who would say that mplayer isn't for him must be stupid or luser, it is stock answer to my requirements. But it won't change a bit what I said.
Mplayer is legal nightmare and isn't ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really... Funny how my wife and 15 year old child are way more capable than you using MplayerGUI. It's easier than Windows Media Player.
I strongly suggest you get out of using a computer and specifically linux, it's way to complicated for you if you cant handle mplayer.
Hell you can even get a mozilla/firefox mplayer plugin that makes it so everything on the net plays nicely without effort.
apt get mplayer-mozilla tends to install everything, but I do admit that that is incredibly difficult to do so you can
Re: (Score:2)
But I can agree abut VLC on Mac and Windows - there it is several steps ahead of other players.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there is another reason one might buy this directly: non x86 platforms. Powerbook G4 users fre
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, FFMPEG is illegal in MAJORITY of IT world. Why it is so hard to say that? It is patent minefield.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nor will they ever be. If the law is changed to allow software patents, then it will be recognised that they were never valid before; so any software patent previously but falsely granted in the EU or UK will be recognised as bogus. The holders will have to re-apply for them, but will be blocked by reason of Prior Art and/or obviety (since there will be code out there to do the sa
Sounds great. If... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll just wait here for the Free Software fire-breathing demons of zealotry. It's quite cold right now and my furnace needs a break.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you sell that? (Score:3, Interesting)
How would this work? Does APT or YUM work via authenticated HTTP connections? They'd obviously need some way to keep just anyone from sticking "apt http://fluendo.com/updates [fluendo.com] nonfree" into their sources.list and grabbing their software -- and I don't think their business model is going to fly if they attempt to do shareware.
Maybe they could sell peopl
Re: (Score:2)
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the coding of the closed and the tyranny of proprietary applications. Blessed is he who in the name of 4 Freedoms and good will frees the source through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's bitkeeper and the user of obsolete hardware. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious ange
Re: (Score:2)
> when it comes to updates.
I belive that is why they try to have stabilised API version - gstreamer is close to 1.0 and probably when it is finished the API for plugins will froze so that any new API will not conflict with old (like propertiary codecs) plugins.
> I would hate my purchased codecs to keep me from
> updating gstreamer,
As I've said - if they implement stable API in gstreamer that should not be an issue.
> the kernel,
WTF has kernel
I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a sec.. You mean you want us to abandon the possibility of implementing DRM, allow customers to fairly use our media, remove our ability to exploit the living crap out of our content providers, and fail to benefit the industry types who give us huge sacks of cash money to keep telling our bosses that their proprietary codecs rock everyone's socks six ways?
Yeahhhh, we'll get right on that.
Love,
the **AA
Re: (Score:2)
The most recent Windows Video, RealVideo, and Sorenson video (Used by QuickTime prior to H.264) are what I might call proprietary in that there is no public standard. They are likely covered by patents as well. MPEG-4's AVC or H.264 may be publically documented but is covered by patents which put free software implementations in the same legal mud as any proprietary codec. On the audio side, MP3 and AAC are in similar situations: publically available but patented.
For publically available and unpatented
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So. Alternatives? Dirac? Snow? Powerful and very advanced, but a) beta b) even less
Nice try, but... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the major difference between the offerings from Fluendo and FFMPEG.
World Domination (Score:2, Interesting)
http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/wor ld-domination-201.html [catb.org]
ESR, et al, believes the ability to play codecs such as these is so vital to the 2008 world domination deadline, that we should put up with these binary blobs. For a while, at least.
Lindows is supposed to be working on this also.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a market (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, I think that it is even easier to sell these kinds of things today. They can make a deal with somebody like Novell or Xandros who want to provide their users with a fully functional fully LEGAL linux desktop. This will help them to do that.
I don't see this being so popular with non-commercial distros like Debian because its a different set of
Breaking news....... (Score:2, Funny)
This could help acceptance of the Linux desktop (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate DRM as much as the next person, but this is good news. Acquiring and installing proprietary codecs is a dark art that is major obstacle to wider acceptance of the Linux desktop.
Given some further development, I can see a few opportunities:
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if keeping an extra copy of windows would make use of the propriority
I'm not so much anti-piracy but pro working shit. For example turboprint [turboprint.de]. If I ever needed to print to my canons under linux, this is something i'd consider paying for.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> that is major obstacle to wider acceptance of the Linux desktop.
This is BS. Installing multimedia support for decent distro is as easy as:
- enabling an additional repository
- issuing a command
You can do this either clicking with your mouse or just with terminal. I'll show with terminal since it is more strict, for Fedora:
% su -
(here enter your root password)
% rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-6.rpm [livna.org]
% yum install mplayer-gui vlc xin
Re: (Score:2)
And no, vlc and xine is no use for simple user. Computer geek - maybe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What patents you are talking about? I bet you don't have any idea.
> And no, vlc and xine is no use for simple user.
Even if so... type:
% yum install totem-xine
It is Totem with xine backend. If you find it hard to use I really find you retarded.
List of patents (Score:3, Informative)
They are covered by patents are therefore is a subject of USAGE restrictions.
What patents you are talking about?
It's not hard for anybody experienced with Google to find a list of MP3 patents [mp3licensing.com], the ASF patent [wikipedia.org], a list of MPEG-2 patents (PDF) [mpegla.com], and a list of MPEG-4 patents (PDF) [mpegla.com].
And no, vlc and xine is no use for simple user.
Even if so... type:
% yum install totem-xine
You forgot the step of obtaining a patent license.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this will help with the take-up of Linux, but I don't see how you can equate DRM with proprietary codecs.
Proprietary codecs often have some benefit to end-users in the form of improved quality, improved resolution (not the same thing) and/or improved compression. SVQ (Sorenson video) codecs in Apple Quicktime certainly helped to make that product popular for some of those reasons, at least until it was surpassed by MPEG-4.
DRM is a benefit to nobody, except when it comes to lining the pockets
This is good for everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FFMPEG (Score:3, Informative)
BBH
I don't know (Score:2)
Would I pay that? I don't know. To be perfectly honest, I haven't actually _bought_ any software for a PC in a very long time. Keep in mind that this exact same functionality is _free_ under Windows.
- Necron69
why we are releasing these codecs (Score:5, Informative)
Our goal is not to provide the community with codecs which there is absolutly no support for already as
that would be foolish. Our goal is to provide a 100% legal option which I know a lot of companies who have or
want to deploy linux desktops have been looking for. These companies like open source, but they also have policies in place
which hinders them from deploying solutions which have clear patent issues hanging over them in their country of operations. This is unfortunatly
the case with most multimedia codecs and even though we have spent a lot on resources on Xiph codecs here at Fluendo and are now working with BBC
on Dirac there is still some way to go before the need for non-free codecs are gone.
So for those in a situation where they can freely use gst-ffmpeg and similar options, more power to you! For those who the lack of licensed codecs
has been a hinderance or problem for adopting Linux (or Solaris) desktops at your company or institution or even private use, then we hope our plugins will be a good solution.
Christian Schaller
Fluendo
I think you're on the right track... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can give me a Linux distribution that is supported and comes bundled with legal implementations of all the codecs at a reasonable price point, I'll buy it. Throw in something like Cedega for games or Crossover Office for other apps (if I even need it at this point) so I can get rid of my Windows installation entirely and that would be an ideal solution for me.
Proprietary, non-free applications are going to be essential to getting Linux into the mainstream. Software sellers aren't interested in an OS they can't sell software to run on.
Thank you! (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The license seems to say "per computer". Does that mean it's OK to install the same software in two versions of Linux on the same (dual-boot) computer?
2) Is there a process for me to legally move the software to a different computer (deleting it on the old one, of course).
3) Does the software "phone home" in any way?
4) The Indemnity clause demands that the buyer (licensee) indemnify you against anything
Ah, somebody's been paying attention! (Score:2)
Putting aside whether you like it or not, sometimes you have got to admit the man has a point
Obligatory Ogg Theora Post (Score:2, Informative)
What makes this better than ffmpeg etc? (Score:2)
A.Supported by ffmpeg/libavcodec/whatever else through open source implementations
B.Supported already through binaries on linux (such as the RealPlayer binary codec libraries)
or C.Not used enough for people to actually care about support
Redundant (Score:3, Insightful)
Good for non-i386 Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if these Codecs could also be made to run under Solaris or BSD or other open source OSes?
Even for the people who use i386, this means there would be a legal codec so the big distos could include it with video players out of the box
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)