The Multimedia Question

[David Nielsen]

ons, 18 07 2007 kl. 17:50 -0500, skrev Tom "spot" Callaway:
> On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 22:07 +0200, David Nielsen wrote:
> > ons, 18 07 2007 kl. 15:08 -0500, skrev Tom "spot" Callaway:
> > > 
> > > Last time I checked, the Fluendo codecs were under a BSD license. That's
> > > a free software license.
> > 
> > The majority of the codecs are under a completely proprietary license,
> > exceptions to that rule are:
> > 
> > * an MIT-licensed mp3 decoder
> > * an MPL-licensed MPEG Transport Stream and Program Stream demuxer 
> > * an MPL-licensed MPEG Transport Stream muxer
> > 
> > Neither one of these comes with a patent grant unless you get the
> > official binaries from Fluendo.
> 
> OK, there are two issues then:
> 
> - Do we want codec buddy to help Fedora users install proprietary
> software (e.g. codecs from Fluendo under proprietary licenses)?
> - Do we want codec buddy to help Fedora users install free software that
> we know to be patent encumbered (e.g. codecs from Fluendo under free
> licenses, dodging patent issues because they come from Fluendo)?
> 
> I think my answer to the second question is yes, but my answer to the
> first question is no.
> 
> I'm not really interested in helping Fluendo sell proprietary software.
> That seems utterly hypocritical to me.

I see no harm in offering our users the choice, if there is no other
legal alternative then Fluendo' codec packs are a decent option.

It is not like we are defaulting to shipping them with Fedora, we are
merely replacing an ugly error message which users tend to not
understand with the option to:

A) Pay for the required support from a company that provides a good
service, uses the profits to fuel open standard development (Ogg
Schrodinger) and invests heavily in developing libraries we rely on
(GStreamer).

B) Grant the option for people who can legally install the patent
encumbered free software implementations to do so (and naturally also
the option to commit a bit of civil disobience for the rest of our
users).

Yum mind you also installs proprietary software, should we make that
work only on Fedora approved software as well? 

In terms of relying on proprietary solutions I am far more worried about
the Online Desktop turning my desktop into MySpace+YouTube+Google GNOME
as there's no Free alternative.. but that's a whole other debate.

- David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dette er en digitalt underskrevet brevdel
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20070719/ea645ff9/attachment.sig>