Fluendo Launches the Ultimate Media Center for Linux Operative Systems

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense-1wCw9BSqJbv44Nm34jS7GywD8/FfD2ys at public.gmane.org>

| On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:25:13PM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| > Fluendo has been around for a while.
| > 
| > They have provide Linux users with CODECs authorized by the patent
| > holders.
| 
| Do they come with source code?

I have no idea.  I'm not a customer.

| > | I thought we had been able to do any region DVD playback for about a
| > | decade on linux now.  How is this news?
| > 
| > Not in a way authorized by the patent holders.
| 
| Perhaps not.  I don't care.  I don't copy DVDs.  If I couldn't play them,
| I wouldn't buy them.  I don't buy blueray because I can't play them.

I don't play DVDs under Linux.  I find that a $30 DVD player means
that I don't have to.  It still rankles me that there is no free (in
both meanings) way to play DVDs on Linux.

What you have given is a rationalization that has no legal weight.
But I agree with you.

| > Some folks try to do things the "by the book".  It is thought that
| > corporations in particular see the downsides of unauthorized use of
| > patents and decide the cost of the authorization is worthwhile.
| 
| And some people try to maintain their systems open source so that they
| can be supported and fixed if necesary.

Says he who advocates the nVidia closed-source X driver.  It's all a
balance of concerns.

(I generally don't use closed-source stuff on my computers.  I do use
the nVidia driver on by Acer Revo -- in fact the box would be
pointless without it.  I don't have Flash on my desktop and a
significant part of the web won't work for me.)

| > On the other hand, the whole system has been brought into such
| > disrepute that some do not care.
| > 
| > Generally speaking, Linux folks seem to respect copyright and care
| > less about patents.  Not surprising: copyrights help Linux but patents
| > hurt it.
| 
| Software patents hurt everyone (except lawyers).

Nice slogan.  Unfortunately not 100% true.  I agree with the
sentiment.

I don't actually see software patents as fundamentally different in
kind from hardware patents.  I don't actually see a fundamental
dividing line between software and hardware leaving aside the patent issue.

| > Quick test: do you use MP3 or Ogg Vorbis for music?  (If you answer
| > flac, you have successfully evaded my test.)  MP3 is patent encumbered.
| 
| And not all of those patents apply in all countries.

I think they apply in the country we are both in.

|  In the case of my
| mythtv box I do in fact use flac.

Your wording suggests that you use MP3 somewhere else.

I have a PMP that plays MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.  Such PMPs are a little
too rare for comfort.

The North American model of mine (and many others) dropped OV support
because the Microsoft Pays For Sure license required them to drop it!
MS later said that they didn't mean it but the damage was done.  So I
flashed some australasian version's firmware.

Even with OV support, it works better with MP3s.  Fast forward and
reverse don't work with my OV recordings.  I've not taken the time to
explore why.

So there is (literally!) a conspiracy to make OV inferior.

| > Linux is at a disadvantage compared with MS Windows.  MS licenses
| > these things in bulk with a lot of bargaining power.  They may not
| > even pay anything since the patent holders need MS Windows support.
| 
| Well it's only at a disadvantage for handling media in patent encumbered
| formats.  There are patent free choices out there.

Those choices are not used by many suppliers.  In fact, fewer and
fewer mainstream ones.

Try to get an open version of a digital TV signal.  ATSC includes
MPEG/2 (why the heck not MPEG/4!!) which is patent encumbered.  Try to
get a DVD in a format that isn't patent encumbered (on several
levels!).  Analogue TV was open.  Mind you, our beloved Hauppauge
cards encoded into an encumbered format.

CDs have a non-encumbered format (AFAIK).  Subsequent music media are
generally worse: MP3, AAC (or whatever it is iTunes uses), Sony's
(thankfully essentially dead), Microsoft's several formats (WMV is a
container, I think).

Add to that various (intrinsically horrible) DRM techniques.  One is
HDCP and the whole "trusted video chain" thing.

My pessimistic view is that "media access" is a serious blocker for
Linux.  It is partly sleeping at the moment: few patent holders are
acting on Linux users' infringements.  Microsoft is spreading FUD, but
not as much as they could; they did whack Tom Tom.

Some netbooks used to come with Linux.  Did they come with movie and music 
players that could play patent-encumbered recordings?  If not, most 
consumers would be dissatisified.  If they did, the licensing would have 
been annoying.  Perhaps Canonical (Ubuntu) or Acer (Linpus) did the
work.

Some servers are still shipped with Linux.  Interesting how none of
the media patents apply to those platforms.  Is there a correlation to
patent applicability and the willingness of hardware vendors to ship
Linux?

I don't think it would be easy for a large company to come out with a
MythTV box, for example.  The licensing required would be horrible.
If not for that, I think that it would be an easy-ish product to
create.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists