06.07.08
MS Buys Codecs from MS
[M]ark [S]huttleworth buys [M]icro[S]oft codecs for Ubuntu
The following observation came up in our IRC channel just a short while ago. It indicates that Ubuntu engaged in licensing of codecs from Microsoft.
<microsoft-spy> schestowitz: you are allowed, Ubuntu licensed Windows Media from Microsoft for Netbooks
<jbh> I don’t know anyone in CA
<moparx> I’ll never understand why a distro (or any foss developer for that matter) would purposefully taint themselves for some of microsoft’s proprietary scraps.
<schestowitz> Gah. Maybe that’s why they don’t allow downloads of it.
<schestowitz> Software patents aren’t even valid where Canonical is.
<schestowitz> ms-spy, got a URL, please?
<jbh> never even heard of netbooks before
<microsoft-spy> schestowitz, how about http://www.canonical.com/netbooks ?
<schestowitz> I believe this is important because given what I know I worry that MS (Mark S.) would do the same with MS for business ‘enterprise’ boxes.
<microsoft-spy> schestowitz, MS does whatever benefits him, proprietary kernel parts etc
<schestowitz> Which MS?
<schestowitz> 
<microsoft-spy> Shuttleworth
<schestowitz> Well, that’s very problematic because he enables Microsoft to control the price of Free software.
<schestowitz> They already cross-licence with Apple, but they play by their own rules.
<microsoft-spy> he just says “All the *applications* in Ubuntu are free software only.”
<schestowitz> Cross-licensing (pardon the typo above) is incompatible with the GPL.
<schestowitz> Yes, but..
<microsoft-spy> so does not include drivers, firmware, codecs, …
<schestowitz> Just to be clear, the issue is not binary/FOSS, but gratis/taxed
<schestowitz> This forbids redistribution, which is also why they don’t permit downloads. It’s like another Moonlight.
If you fail to see why this is bad, then consider looking back at the Red Hat ‘extortion’ story (more in this recent article about the ‘codec incident’). Also recall what Novell did.
In order to defend such plots, Microsoft has been fighting for DMCA around the world — essentially extending beyond the boundaries of the United States. Recently it was Canada that got targeted and in the news you find Red Hat’s founder, Bob Young, entering the ring.
Lulu Inc. CEO Bob Young is a major voice in the open source software industry, but according to him the entire community has been unjustifiably ignored throughout the Canadian government’s copyright reform initiatives.
Last year, the Conservative government vowed to adopt copyright laws which would make it illegal to modify or remove any device or software fitted with a technical protection measures (TPMs). After months of hearsay and numerous delays, the buzz on Parliament Hill now suggests a proposed copyright bill from Industry Minister Jim Prentice is imminent.
In the wake of these rumors — which many industry activists have begun referring to as the Canadian version of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) — a new open source software alliance has added their name to the lengthy list of opposition to the Industry Minister’s soon-to-be-unveiled legislation.
It’s worth adding that Bob Young is pro-GPLv3 (video).
We wrote about this Microsoft lobby before. As some further relevant readings (external links), consider:
- Microsoft Misleads on Copyright Reform
- Canadian DMCA On Hold?
- CD copying OK, DRM circumvention not OK
- Microsoft: We Like DRM
This is a dangerous precedence that Microsoft is setting and It’s sad to see Canonical and Intel playing along. Nevertheless, it’s not surprising given the nearness of Intel and Microsoft. In private, sources told us a few months ago that Mark Shuttleworth negotiated codecs with Microsoft. █
Who’s that fourth chap we don’t know?
RyanT said,
June 7, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Meh, am mixed on this. While I’d prefer them to steer clear altogether, it doesn’t allow Microsoft to control the price of free software at all, it’s a codec, and if they want to include it as part of standard media support, then they have to do it legally, i.e., pay for it.
It’s a shame, but doesn’t go to the extent you were suggesting.
Victor Soliz said,
June 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Meh, I think the reason remix will bundle codecs and flash and adobe reader and Sun’s JVM is that unlike desktop it wouldn’t make ‘restricted’ work.
Would have to choose between users seeing remix look as a second class citizen or just licensing the damn codecs, I for one would prefer no codecs, but the market remix is directed to is way more spoiled than that. So they need to go over some acclimatization before getting something freeer.
I don’t agree this means in any way that the desktop corporate would license those codecs.
Anyway, will complaint, sometimes that’s all what you can do. It looks like you can opt-out real player, so you should be given the right to avoid windows media as well. While we are on it , there should be a truly free version already, flash? Adobe reader? Thanks but no thanks.
Hagbard Celine said,
June 7, 2008 at 6:30 pm
licensing != distribution. “The source can have a strong influence on the weak minded”. aptitude show ubuntu-restricted-extras. Beware FUD.
Mark Fink said,
June 7, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Canonical also provided the video in MP4 format.
See here: http://www.canonical.com/netbooks
Well, Ubuntu is off my list of distros I’ll ever run again now that it’s tainted.
Victor Soliz said,
June 7, 2008 at 9:16 pm
From the page:
Remix (Intel) is tainted.
Balzac said,
June 8, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I’ll be migrating away from Ubuntu. I had hoped that Mark Shuttleworth was more aware of what’s at stake, but apparently he’s just another “open source” entrepreneur who doesn’t see the big picture.
Balzac said,
June 8, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Now, I’m going to figure out whether to use Gnewsense or Debian.
Phobos said,
June 8, 2008 at 10:12 pm
lol… first, it’s not like they are doing an “interoperatibility” deal… codecs is not the same problem as code… actually, many OSS noobs complain about how their WMAs and MP3s won’t work in linux… so this is not a bad idea at all
second, this is for the netbook remix.. not normal Ubuntu… why are you saying you want to migrate from Ubuntu if it has nothing to do with it?… this is why so many people won’t even touch OSS… MS badmouths it… and OSS users badmouth it too
Victor Soliz said,
June 8, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Call it FOSS.
I am currently trying to make the remix codecs optional, so you don’t have to get them if you don’t want to play those media files.
At the end of the day, MaSh needs to get the darn codecs somewhere, there are only two approaches if you want to include codecs to hope the law changes or to license them.
In the meantime:
1) See FOSS users complaining about a decision.
2) Make the users’ complaints look as crazy or totally unfounded / unnecessary.
3) Assume FOSS is not succeeding.
4) Blame FOSS’ lack of success on the user’s complaints.
I call it the “FUD out of nowhere” scheme.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 8, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Phobos, I know this is just Netbook Remix, but looking ahead I worry about something like EnterpriseBuntu.
Mark Shuttleworth said,
June 9, 2008 at 3:54 am
Canonical has not licensed codes from Microsoft for work with OEM’s on the netbook remix. However, we almost certainly WILL license codecs from any one of a number of sources - Real, Fluendo or others - so that users of Ubuntu can legally play content in as many formats as possible. Those codecs would be available alongside existing free software implementations for users to choose, and some OEM’s may choose to bundle them on their devices.
There is nothing in that which is a conspiracy, or bad for free software. We already have reasonable free codecs, like Ogg, but there is content out there which people have every right to access, and if they need to purchase codecs in order to do so legally in their country then we need to facilitate that. Of course, we also want to work to make sure that open codecs become more widely adopted, and we want to work against laws which are dumb enough to create artificial boundaries in an open, digital world. But we are not here to encourage people to BREAK existing law, nor are we here to to prevent people from exercising all of their options. We are stronger when we make good arguments for freedom, not when we impose particular behaviour.
Dan O'Brian said,
June 9, 2008 at 5:48 am
Victor Soliz: that’s /exactly/ the kind of “FUD out of nowhere” scheme that you and this site pull against Novell and Mono.
So stop being a hypocrite.
BTW: do you work for Ubuntu?
Dan O'Brian said,
June 9, 2008 at 7:02 am
By “work for Ubuntu” I obviously meant Canonical. (drinking my morning coffee as I type this)
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 9, 2008 at 7:36 am
Mark,
That is ‘licensing’ (taxation) by association. Microsoft is still paid as far as I know. It seems like you guys gradually approach the business model of Mandriva.
Better make a start here:
http://www.canonical.com/files/video/netbook-screencast.mp4
To be a bit pedantic, this tells me that I need to buy proprietary software just to find out what Notebook Remix is about. It’s a cyclic trap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp4
This remark is commendable.
I know that you adhere to the values of Free software (you have made it more than obvious over the years), but by making compromises for convenience (yours or your customers’) you make it easier for vendors to take more of our freedom and rights away. it does not affect only those who buy Remix. It sets trends.
‘Winning’ by putting proprietary software on top of Linux is hardly winning. It’s ‘pulling an Oracle’.
Lastly, remember what you told your friend Matt Asay a year ago about the difference bewteen $0.00 and $0.01. And that’s just a consideration of practical factors alone, never mind freedom.
Sense Hofstede said,
June 9, 2008 at 9:56 am
As Canonical/Ubuntu/Mark stated several times there won’t be a special Enterprise edition of Ubuntu, the work of the community will be freely available to everyone.
Roy: so you don’t use any propertiery software or formats? Did you recompile OpenOffice.org so that it doesn’t support MS’s formats anymore? It’s probably hard to live without standards that are used by way too many people in this world. I agree that Canonical and Ubuntu could do more to promote free formats(please don’t use mp4!), but when they would remove all propertiery codecs I don’t think Ubuntu would be as popular as it is now. Which would mean that a lot of people would leave the community, which would mean that there would be a lot less community input, which would be bad for the whole Linux thing.
Getting support for something widely used doesn’t seem to make things get worse to me. I think Ubuntu would be even better when the closed formats would be supported out of the box.
crazybus said,
June 9, 2008 at 10:08 am
Was the ogg version http://www.canonical.com/files/video/netbook-screencast.ogg added later, or are people upset of featuring a .mp4 as the main download?
Mark Shuttleworth said,
June 9, 2008 at 11:12 am
I think that was added today. Our marketing team should not have put an mp4 up as the default, and when they saw this commentary they immediately apologized to the distro team for creating the wrong impression. I assume they have since published the ogg.
Slated said,
June 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm
This issue of support for proprietary formats, of whatever type, is obviously a contentious one, fraught with difficult choices, but IMHO capitulating to the demands of the pro-software patent lobby is not the right choice.
Canonical cannot compromise it’s business by wilfully breaking the law, therefore distribution of unlicensed patented software is not possible within countries that enforce these ridiculous laws.
So that just leaves one of three choices:
1. Do not support proprietary formats, ever.
2. License proprietary formats at cost, thus tainting Free Software distributions (e.g. direct licensing per distro from Microsoft, or indirect licensing per user from Fluendo).
3. Do not provide pre-installed support for proprietary formats, or commercial codec installers, but instead point users to third party repos located outside the jurisdiction of software patents, where they may obtain e.g. MPlayer.
Point 1 is desirable from a political standpoint, but quite impractical in reality. It is the best choice for distros like gNewSense (and Gobuntu, had it not shut down due to a lack of support from the vendor for the promotion of freedom).
Point 2 is the route that Canonical and Fedora have both taken, and that I strongly disagree with, because it taints Free Software by default.
Point 3 is, IMHO the best solution, since it means that no GNU/Linux distro is distributed in a tainted state, and does not even promote the patentability of software. Equally this solution does not compromise the integrity of the company backing the distro, as no law has been broken. Users are not encouraged to support software patents, and the Intellectual Monopolists don’t get a penny from Free Software users.
AFAICT the third method is the way this used to be done, but for some reason many distros have recently taken to capitulating to the demands of Intellectual Monopolists, by both supporting and promoting software patents and proprietary software.
I can only assume that these distro vendors are getting nervous about the imminent prospect of being sued. Perhaps there have been talks (i.e. threats) going on in secret that we are not privy to.
Whatever the reason, I cannot support this latest development, or any similar developments that seek to promote proprietary and/or encumbered software.
Vadim P. said,
June 9, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Spending your time dissing one of the best products of FOSS. Oh, what a troll.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 9, 2008 at 10:17 pm
How can this be “dissing” when I do so much time promoting? What’s posted here is instructive.
Balzac said,
June 9, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“…there is content out there which people have every right to access, and if they need to purchase codecs in order to do so legally in their country then we need to facilitate that.” - Mark Shuttleworth
Mark, I disagree with you on this. There is a time and a place for civil-disobedience. Foolish laws must be ignored.
Canonical doesn’t need to break these foolish laws, but neither does Canonical need to impede those of us who would ignore these foolish laws.
Microsoft is willing to ignore the law to take my freedom and I’m willing to ignore the law to keep my freedom.
You ought to have a more fresh and subversive approach or you risk falling behind the times and offering up a stagnant software experience.
Slated said,
June 9, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“a stagnant software experience” … or worse, a proprietary Linux software experience, just another flavour of Windows.
I use GNU/Linux because I value my freedom. Moves like this take away that freedom.
Balzac said,
June 9, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Mark,
I have to ask another question of you - Why do you say “Linux” when you’re referring to GNU and Linux?
Isn’t GNU equally worthy of mention alongside the Linux Kernel, at least?
I’m aware of your quiet support for free software, but, there are others who are very proud of supporting GNU and Free Software.
It’s not impossible to make money while promoting the more socially-engaging Free Software brand, is it?
Stavros said,
June 10, 2008 at 1:27 am
Roy said, “How can this be “dissing” when I do so much time promoting? What’s posted here is instructive. ”
Oh, don’t make us laugh, Roy.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 10, 2008 at 1:39 am
You can search the Web (my name and “ubuntu”) and see that I’ve offered almost nothing but praise for Ubuntu over the years. I guess that’s why I even used the first version of Ubuntu.. just to “diss” it, eh?
Balzac said,
June 10, 2008 at 5:46 am
I’m glad Mark Shuttleworth has came here to make his case.
In all fairness, I’m not switching to gNewsense just because of this issue with proprietary codecs. I was already planning to switch anyway because I want a lifestyle completely free of proprietary software.
Because Mark Shuttleworth bothers to show up and clarify things a bit, he doesn’t strike me as such an arrogant guy, so I’ll continue to recommend Ubuntu for friends who still want proprietary codecs, but I won’t be using it myself.
I have mixed feelings about the proprietary codecs. One impulse I have is to shun any media encoded in proprietary codecs, but my other impulse is to get software to play them, yet without paying any licensing fees and without using someone else’s proprietary software.
If the law is the only thing keeping us from implementing certain functionality, perhaps it is time for a new class of software - “civil disobedience software” which uses any proprietary algorithm which can be reverse-engineered without regard for any copyright or patent claims.
Dan O'Brian said,
June 10, 2008 at 6:42 am
Slated/Balzac:
In order to make money from Free Software, you have to attract the type of people who are willing to pay for it (or support, which is usually what distro businesses try to sell). These types usually are the types that want things to Just Work(tm). They don’t want excuses as to why they can’t play their mp3’s or wmv’s in Linux, when they have no problems doing it in Windows or Mac. They also don’t want to have to go to a third party to purchase the plugins to allow it - they feel that because Windows and Mac OS’s come pre-bundled with the software to play these formats, so should Linux.
You can make Slated’s argument above, but all you end up doing as alienating potential users. They might not be the type of users that will pick up the “Free Software” sign post and wave it above their head and boycott proprietary software or even software patents, but they are still potential sources of income and they still count towards swaying hardware manufacturers and other software vendors to start opening up their code as well as pushing toward the end of software patents.
You’ll never get a majority of the world’s population of software users (and potential software suers) to picket, but they don’t need to in order to make hw/sw vendors begin to start opening up, because they’ll realize that if they do not they’ll lose out to a growing number of potential customers.
My point is that they do not need to be Free Software idealists in order to make the Free Software movement more powerful.
If Slated’s and Balzac’s goal is to make GNU/Linux only for the elitists, then that is your choice - but mine and (obviously) Mark Shuttleworth’s goal is for GNU/Linux to be used by as many people as possible (by their own choice, not forced upon them) by allowing them to do the things they want to be able to do with their OS. If that means using patented media technology or writing proprietary software, even, then we need to allow them to do it.
Don't Be Stupid - Stick with Open Codecs only said,
June 10, 2008 at 10:52 am
Proprietary codecs are a pox. You know that. I know that. But, they won’t go away until we stop using them.
It may feel convenient, short term, to include proprietary codecs but all that is doing is encouraging use of — guess what — proprietary data formats.
If you *have* to include them, at least do something to discourage use or proprietary standards like nagging or pointing to the open eqivalent. Open audio and video formats need a push and Ubuntu is in a position to make that push.
Control of the codec give control of the data. Control of the data means you lose.
Come on. Get with the times. Europe is a (the?) key growth market these days and the EC says
“…for all future IT developments and procurement
procedures, the Commission shall promote the
use of products that support open, well-documented
standards…. ”
- http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7403/469
Just this morning, the European Commissioner for Competition Policy, Neelie Kroes, points out that the above policy needs to be implemented with vigor.
- http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/317&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
She also pointed out that no citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to use a particular company’s technology to access government information. Nor should any citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one, which is precisely what happens if proprietary codecs and formats get bundled in Ubuntu. People see it as an endorsement.
Further, Andy Updegrove draws the connection, for those who may miss it, between open standards/formats and democracy:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080229171250199
The informed decision is the foundation for the democratic process. Free flow of information and interchange of ideas enable enlightened discourse and are the foundation for the informed decision. Information flow and communication of ideas are enabled by open codecs and formats. They are restricted by proprietary codecs and formats.
Of course each of us, in a small way, either adds to or detracts from that chain of communication each time we use either an open codec or a closed one. Projects that influence larger populations provide a multiplier effect in proportion to the size user base.
So. Please. Think twice before you shit in our pocket with a proprietary codec or two. Instead, lead people to enabling, open technologies.
Victor Soliz said,
June 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Dan O’Brian : If by “that’s exactly the kind of FUD used in this site” You mean they are totally unrelated things that makes no sense to link, then I agree.
I don’t work for ubuntu/canonical, sorry if one of my posts somehow give the wrong impression, at this moment I am just a student that does freelance work, I don’t think I’ll end up working for any giant out there.
–
Anyway, as I said Canonical must license the codecs if they want to distribute them, so the only solution I can think for this is to allow a way not to receive those codecs so users like me who don’t want them could use remix. I hope this is somehow made possible, Mark.
Aleksey said,
June 10, 2008 at 8:47 pm
GNU and Linux were originally developed using proprietary software, but I must delete my whole MP3 collection and burn my DVDs for the sake of FOSS purity.
I am with you guys on wanting and working to purely free software, but to boycot Ubuntu because Canonical licensed codecs for the Remix version is a little far, IMHO, and instead hurts the FOSS movement.
I think the FOSS movement should use strategy to win, not just scream. It makes us look very weird.
andrewsomething said,
June 10, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Victor:
The code for all the netbook specific packages is already availiable:
https://edge.launchpad.net/netbook-remix
Balzac said,
June 10, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Dan O’brian,
If you fail to understand my logic, that’s okay with me. I’m not in any hurry to convince you of anything, but I’ll offer you another clue.
I’m after developers and gamers first. They are the ones most likely to want freedom.
One man has stood for freedom for computer users more than any other person. I will gladly take any of his critics to the mat, because I’ve been very inspired both as a socially-engaged person and as an entrepreneur.
Good luck with your “open source” approach to things. Expect to be challenged every time you make user freedom less than top priority.
Balzac
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 10, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Aleksey, who ever said anything about a boycott? This was just an observation, not a cheap shot at anything, not even Ubuntu.
Aleksey said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:02 am
There was a handful of people who said Ubuntu is off their list of distros and the like in their comments. I was responding to them; I apologize I didn’t make that clear though.
My point was that this is a “necassary evil” at the moment, just like compiling GNU and Linux using proprietary software was at one point. But just like at one point we were able to eliminate that, we will be able to eliminate this as well. If we do it too early though, we will hurt ourselves (like would the original developers of GNU if they had decided to compile without proprietary software).
So I was pointing out the silliness of those particular comments and saying we need strategy, which sometimes includes temporary “compromize”, like a game of chess would. you must be flexible in your game plan if you are to win.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:06 am
Richard Stallman once said that, based on his experience, when people reach complacency on the acceptance of binaries, taking it away is too hard. I’m not sure if the lessons from the GPU industry suggest otherwise (NVidia might announce an open source strategy in August).
Victor Soliz said,
June 11, 2008 at 7:28 am
Hmnn, I am not sure if that’s right. My [limited] understanding of this is:
RMS? coded GCC this is where they probably used proprietary tools.
GNU tools were then developed using GCC?
Linus used GCC to develop Linux.
So, the GNU compiler was developed using proprietary tools, but the rest probably did not need so, just saying.
I think the message is to convert your mp3 collection to ogg.
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 10:23 am
OGG won’t work on most MP3 players, so converting all your collection from mp3 to ogg will leave you with a bunch of files that will *only* work on your linux box… (windows doesn’t support OGG natively either)
I know you can make the ipod play oggs in certain ways… and that installing ogg codecs on windows is easy.. but the vast majority of people won’t do either of these and most don’t even know that it can be done
all of you just assume that because you know how to do it, everyone should… that’s the problem with GNU/Linux, the developers assume what is best for the end users… since that’s not what they want, they won’t use it… Linux has not gotten very far on the desktop and this is one of the reasons
Ubuntu was a game broker, because it was what regular people was looking on a OS… something that worked and was less hacking your way through….
if you want to be a OSS purist, go and be so yourself… why do you want to impose your points of view on everybody else?… go and use gNewSense and see your wireless cards fail…. watch your non 3D accelerated desktop go…. go and be happy and let others be happy too with their legal codecs to play their files… it’s a shame, but the law still needs this to be this way
if enough people actually start using FOSS, you can eventually and progressively introduce open codecs to them… not impose it them all at once… people can change from windows to mac os x because everything they have been using up until then keeps working as usual and most of the time, better than before… (yes, games are played only by a minority of PC users, so they don’t matter that much)… and then, instead of using WMV for their videos, they start using h264 with their quicktime codecs… FOSS has the same (and even much more) potential as mac os x, but blinded zealots are the cancer killing it.
everything must be done little by little…
Thanks Mark for Ubuntu, keep up the good work
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 10:43 am
Phobos: I agree. We need to take things one step at a time with migrating people over to Linux. If they need proprietary software/codecs/whatever to aid in moving over, then we need to make sure they have that option, otherwise they won’t make the jump.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 11:32 am
@Dan O’Brian
“You’ll never get a majority of the world’s population of software users”
Good.
Free Software is not a popularity contest, it is about Freedom. People who want to enslave themselves to proprietary software should go elsewhere, and not drag us down with them. Period.
I’m all for converting people to GNU/Linux, but not if it means destroying the very principles of that Free Software to accomplish that goal, because the end result would not be any form of “conversion” to Free Software, it would be our conversion away from Free Software to proprietary software. I’d count that as a far bigger failure than losing potential converts who are more interested in bloody MP3s than Freedom.
If GNU/Linux becomes just another Windows-type OS, with all the technical; political and financial baggage that entails, then what exactly would be the point of using GNU/Linux at all? We may as well just give up, concede to Microsoft’s repression of Free Software, and use Windows, like all good little consumers are supposed to.
This perversion has already begun, with Poisonware like Mono and Moonlight, and equally poisonous standards like OOXML (all ably assisted by Microsoft’s “partners” at Gnome and Novell, of course). And now the GNU/Linux vendors want to further encumber it with commercial; proprietary; patent encumbered “IP” too, which not only taints Free Software, but also promotes this patent garbage by lecturing us to “do the right thing”. Yeah, the “right thing” according to the Intellectual Monopolists, that is. IOW they’ve sold out, and are trying to sell their users out too.
Well no one is selling me out. I’m nobody’s slave.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 11:58 am
@Phobos
FYI: My entire music collection of ~50,000 songs is all in Ogg Vorbis format.
Also ref: Windows support for Ogg and other Open/Free formats - ask yourself why Microsoft deliberately excludes completely free formats, but prefers to waste money on huge royalties to use MP3 instead. If Microsoft did support Ogg and Theora then the vast majority of PC users in the world would be exposed to that technology, and inevitably use it, eventually even in preference to MP3. This would cost Microsoft nothing, so why do they ignore it?
This would also mean there’d ultimately be more DAP/DMP (hardware) support for Ogg and Theora, and from music services too, but AFAICT it is only because of Microsoft’s stubborn refusal (bigotry) to support these standards that Ogg and Theora are not more widely adopted.
And your “solution”? Give up, capitulate to the demands of the Intellectual Monopolists and patent trolls, and declare your undying support for their encumbered crap.
Some “solution” that is.
How about using and promoting Ogg; Open Standards; and Free Software, instead of selling out and encouraging others to follow you.
Meanwhile, there are better media players for Windows (for those who feel some dire need to use it) that do support free formats, like Foobar 2000 for example, or even better … MPlayer for Windows which is both free and Free.
And I don’t buy that “Windows users are too stupid/lazy to download software” rubbish either. I used to be one of those Windows users, and IME “downloading software” (especially so-called “pirate” software) is pretty much all Windows users ever do. Well that … and futzing around with screensavers, in between rounds of Solitaire.
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Slated, that kind of attitude is the problem.
You’re mixing things up… OOXML and .NET are things that Microsoft want to impose one way or another but they are NOT used extensively today.
MP3 is a format that has long outlived the expectation they had for it when Fraunhofer (note that MP3 has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft) designed it. Even Microsoft has tried to fight it off with WMA to no avail.
“Free Software is not a popularity contest, it is about Freedom. People who want to enslave themselves to proprietary software should go elsewhere, and not drag us down with them. Period.”
you have to separate your ideologies from the real world for a bit… that’s your point of view and I might as well say that people like you should go elsewhere to a world where proprietary software doesn’t exist.
Free Software is about Freedom. Yes, about Freedom of Choice… and people CAN choose to use proprietary formats if they want.
the way you put it “I use GNU/Linux because it’s different than what the else use”…. the same happens with people using Mac OS X… if it becomes mainstream, it will loose it’s appeal to them.
I repeat, licensing codecs is a completely different matter than the Mono and OOXML issue…. this is not an “interoperatibilty deal” either…. don’t go around mixing stuff up for your own sake…
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@Phobos
Ref: Your comments about Free Software advocated “imposing their will” on other.
Is Freedom an imposition?
Since when is it considered dictatorial to offer and promote Freedom?
You sound like a slave owner complaining about the abolition of slavery, except in this case the “slavery” is not being abolished, it is merely being discouraged.
To me it sounds far more like it is you who is attempting to “impose his will” on us, by dictating that we don’t have the right to promote Freedom.
Are you that far gone that you not only reject that Freedom for yourself, but seek to censor those who promote it?
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:14 pm
No.
you are the one making a fuzz because the Ubuntu Netbook Remix wants to add proprietary codecs licenses… YOU are the want wanting to impose your zealotry to others.
you can promote open codecs… but that doesn’t mean blinding yourself to them… you can be passionate about Open Source… but you can’t make other people as passionate as you are just because you want to… you can follow your ideologies, but you CAN NOT force people to follow you.
spreading Open Source Software, even while using some proprietary licenses too, is still spreading OSS… Ubuntu Netbook still supports fully OGG and Theora, only that it comes with more options to choose what to use.
That’s true Freedom, Freedom of Choice, as I said earlier.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Everyone needs to pay for the codecs, you know? Me and you included, regardless of our choices.
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:23 pm
you don’t need them, you don’t buy them.
that’s why it’s a remix… if you don’t want the codecs, get regular Ubuntu and add the Remix packages… we have many choices
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:29 pm
@Phobos
These are not my ideologies, they are the ideologies of Free Software (go read the GPL if you don’t believe me).
You have the Freedom to choose to use Free Software, or not, at your discretion, but what you are proposing is that it is acceptable, and indeed necessary, to destroy the principles of Freedom in order to have it more widely adopted.
See if you can spot the obvious flaw in your own logic.
This “real world” argument is irrelevant. Free Software is licensed as such for a reason, and that reason is Freedom, not popularity. It is not I who chose to license tens of thousands of software projects under the GPL, that decision was made by those respective developers, who all chose Freedom. You would arbitrarily take that Freedom away by encouraging a dependency on encumbered software, because you think it isn’t “practical” to live without it.
But the GPL is not supposed to be about what is “practical” to “real world” considerations, it is about promoting the “ideology” of Freedom. If people like you choose to reject those principles, then thanks for your time - and goodbye.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Oh it gets worse now.
Apparently Freedom is “zealotry”.
Case closed.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Footnote:
“CAN NOT force people to follow you”
Who’s “forcing”?
This is called a “debate”, whereupon I advocate my ideals, and you either accept or reject them.
Do I have a gun in my hand?
Again, you seem to be promoting censorship
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:38 pm
You ought to see the IRC channel at the moment. People write blog posts about us and now equate Freedom to “communism”.
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Slated, you are wrong again.
These are your ideologies… you wouldn’t be writing here if they weren’t.
GPL is just a license, it is not an ideology, nor a religion, nor a political statement… it is just a set of rules.
I never said you had to destroy Freedom… Roy seems to understand what I write… you still don’t.
Freedom is Freedom… what you do is not Freedom, is zealotry… you are answering so blindly that you don’t even see where you yourself are at fail, even when I have said so a couple of times already.
licensing codecs is not encumbering software… it’s legally adding something that can’t be added otherwise… it’s giving people options… you DON’T have to use them if you don’t want to.
You are trying to force people not to use MP3s and other things… you don’t need to point a gun for that, you just have to go around attacking Mark and Ubuntu for deciding to add licensed codecs to a Remix… that way, if things come out the way you want, nobody gets the licensed codecs…. and thus, you are trying to force them to do what you want
Free Software IS communism… communism by itself, as an ideology is great… that every goverment that has called itself communist have done so while being a dictatorship is one thing… but communism is not a bad thing, Roy
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Steady on.
Communism is a term which is used in politics.
Free software is about engineering.
What is this mixup?
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I guess they are using “communism” as in a kind of socialism, not about it’s political meaning
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The fact you seem to forget is that the people who aren’t zealots like yourself have every right to use Linux they way that they see fit. Same with the people writing software for Linux. They have every right to write proprietary software if that is their choosing. They can’t force you to use their software, you can simply refuse to install it.
Kicking and screaming like a spoiled child is not going to win anyone over - it’s about time you learned that.
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:19 pm
That was meant for Slated, in case it wasn’t obvious.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:33 pm
@Phobos
No, these are not “my” ideologies, they were created by the Free Software Foundation … I merely support them.
You are clearly trying to marginalise me as some kind of fringe fanatic, by implying that this Free Software issue is somehow my personal endeavour. If you have such a problem with Free Software, then I suggest you go talk to Richard Stallman, I’m sure that will be an interesting, if brief, conversation.
And you’re wrong about the GPL being “just” a license. The FSF created and uses the GPL, and other means, to politically and philosophically promote the ideologies of Freedom. You really should read up on the subjects you are attempting to debate:
[quote]
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a 501(c)3 donor supported charity founded in 1985 and based in Boston, MA, USA. The FSF has a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users.
[/quote]
http://www.fsf.org/about/
Note: “promote … freedom”.
[quote]
Philosophy of the GNU Project
A series of articles describing the philosophy of the Free Software Movement, which is the motivation for our development of the free software operating system GNU.
[/quote]
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
Note: “Philosophy”.
And here’s some pretty blatant philosophy written directly into the GPL:
[quote]
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program–to make sure it remains free software for all its users.
…
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
[/quote]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Indeed, the GPL reads far more like a philosophical Mission Statement than a licence, which may account for why Stallman refers to it as CopyLeft rather than Copyright.
In fact I recommend you read through that whole section, although I get the distinct impression it won’t alter your obviously intractable bigotry. At least you will be able to converse intelligently on the subject.
And you still have not substantiated your claim that promoting Freedom is “zealotry”. Merely stating that as a fact, does not make it so. However, arbitrarily denouncing those who disagree with you as “zealots”, most certainly is a clear sign of bigotry (hint: you said it first).
“licensing codecs is not encumbering software”
Yes it most certainly is, since it makes what was previously Free Software (e.g. Totem/gstreamer) dependant on other encumbered software (proprietary codecs). It also taints the distro (as used by that incumbent user) as a whole, and taints the Free Software Community with this capitulation to the Intellectual Monopolists and patent trolls.
IOW certain supposedly Free Software distributors are promoting the poisoning of Free Software with non-Free software.
That is the issue … not the simple fact that proprietary software exists, nor that some people may wish to use that proprietary software, but the fact that it is being deployed and promoted from within the Free Software community.
That is the root of my dissent (or “fuzz”, as you put it).
And still you claim that I am “forcing” people to follow me.
Debate is not “forcing”, Phobos, it is my basic right to free speech.
Why do you think the opinions of Free Software advocates should be censored.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:38 pm
It gets even worse…
Now we’ve gone from Freedom is “zealotry” to “Free Software IS communism”.
What next, Phobos?
Are you going to accuse Free Software advocates of being terrorists?
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm
He never accused of any such thing. Clearly you need to take a chill pill.
All he said was that you are arrogant in thinking that people using Linux should do things your way or get lost.
…And he’s right.
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“And you’re wrong about the GPL being “just” a license. The FSF created and uses the GPL, and other means, to politically and philosophically promote the ideologies of Freedom. You really should read up on the subjects you are attempting to debate:”
you, once again, are mixing stuff up.
GPL IS a license, nothing more. The Free Software Foundation promotes Free Software. They created the GPL (General Public LICENSE), but they also promote other licenses for Free Software.
They have and ideology and a philosophy.. but the GPL is neither of those, it is a Free Software LICENSE.
The Free Software Foundation didn’t create ideologies. They follow one.
You follow yours, I didn’t try to marginalize you. Each person follow theirs… and each one defend theirs.
You seem to think that I like Microsoft…. and you have no idea how off the mark you are. Richard Stallman is one of my personal heroes…
I’m not calling you zealot because we think different. I’m calling you zealot because you write like all the other zealots around, that only use FOSS because it’s not Microsoft and not because of it’s own merits.
Like those who don’t use Ubuntu and instead use another distro and their only comment is always “my distro is better than Ubuntu”… and while that might be or not true, nobody cares. The most used distro is Ubuntu and it is for a good reason..
Nobody is promoting proprietary software. You keep mixing these…. Codecs are needed to keep using what people are using now… you need to make a soft transition, not an imposing one… people are always reluctant to changes…. you are supporting new users and inviting them to change to a FOSS world… you are telling them that they don’t need windows to do the same stuff as before… little by little, they will know they don’t need MP3s…. or RM, WMV and others for that matter…. but that if they still need them, they can use them if they want to…
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Miles, some people have already taken this as far as “terrorism” (cue Rob Enderle). It’s a demonisation technique which is intended to permit robbing of one’s human rights, freedoms.
Balzac said,
June 11, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“The fact you seem to forget is that the people who aren’t zealots like yourself have every right to use Linux they way that they see fit.”
Did somebody get duct-taped to a chair and forced to use or write free software? Then I guess everyone is using “Linux” as they see fit already. Criticism doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights. You are a zealot against his right to criticize a corporation.
“Kicking and screaming like a spoiled child is not going to win anyone over - it’s about time you learned that.”
People who say “Open Source” instead of “Free Software” and people who refuse to acknowledge the GNU project in their GNU-derived OS variants are not respectful of the free software community and are not entitled to be exempt from criticism.
“Open Source” zealots have been attacking the free software community since the very inception of the “Open Source” brand identity. That’s what the “Open Source” brand identity means - You’re willing to sell out at the earliest opportunity. You’re willing to confuse and deceive people in order to marginalize those who will not compromise their freedom like you do. Microsoft is on your side, not ours.
Sadly, you’re missing an opportunity to enjoy freedom and catch the next big wave - a Free Software Renaissance.
I’m not just a socially-engaged person, I’m also an entrepreneur and I seek to strengthen the Free Software brand recognition at the expense of the “Open Source” brand recognition because that’s what the “Open Source” people have been doing the whole time.
Free Software advocates and entrepreneurs must challenge the “Open Source” brand identity in order to protect Free Software brand identity from compromised interlopers who seek to confuse the market.
The Free Software Community existed first and remains distinct from the “Open Source” faction. The Free Software Community refuses to be assimilated by the Open Source faction.
My hope is to see developers and gamers learn that authentic “Free Software” is what they really want, not some mixed-source grab-bag peddled as “Open Source” software.
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Roy: irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Phobos is not accusing the Free Software community of being terrorists.
Phobos is simply advocating a gentle transition for Windows users to come to Linux, and that is the path that is most likely to help mom & pop move to Linux and be happy.
Slated’s view that if you aren’t willing to give up you right to view your media (which is encoded in a proprietary format), you aren’t entitled to run Linux is just warped and hateful.
Slated is an elitist and clearly does not want the average Joe to be able to run Linux (as he himself stated above). The Free Software community has been plagued by people like him since very early on, and they are hurting the advance of Free Software.
He seems to be the type of person who runs Linux merely because it allows him to feel that he is better than everyone else “I run Linux, so I’m cooler than you”. These people have major self-esteem issues as can clearly be seen by Slated’s temper tantrum, and from what I can tell - he has them quite often.
Mark Fink seems to be yet another perfect example of this type of person.
Miles said,
June 11, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Balzac: huh? You clearly misunderstood what I said.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I don’t know Mark Fink. What I do know, however, is that imposition can come with products that offer you no ability to keep you (and your wallet) away from the abomination which is software patents.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 3:05 pm
@Miles
Ref: Phobos’ bigoted stereotyping.
“He never accused of any such thing.”
You do know the difference between a question and a statement, don’t you?
So far Phobos has denounced Free Software advocates as “zealots”, and Free Software itself as “Communism”. I am merely speculating as to how far he will extend his bigoted opinions of Free Software.
BTW: Welcome to the Free-Software-bashing party. Be sure to invite the rest of your Ubuntu friends over to contribute their bigotry as well, so we can get a good measure of how institutionalised this problem really is within the Ubuntu community.
Phobos said,
June 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm
sorry, but I did not denounce Free Software advocates as zealots, I called you a zealot.
Balzac said,
June 11, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Guys, let’s be honest about what’s happening here. It’s a debate between two ascendant software sectors. “Open Source” branded projects and Free Software projects are both rising up against Microsoft, but there’s a battle for mind-share and market-share between “Open Source” and Free Software.
Many businesses who’ve associated their brand with “Open Source” don’t want the market to catch on about the Free Software Movement because they stand to lose mind-share and market-share in the same manner Microsoft stands to lose mind-share to “open source” and for similar reasons.
“Open Source” is really a code-phrase which means “mixed source” and “plays nicely with proprietary software”. The agenda is higher quarterly profit-margins, not freedom.
So, you can keep up your rhetoric, which will only inflame the dialog and lead to more hemorrhaging of mind-share and market-share from the “open source” brand recognition to Free Software “brand” recognition”.
We can make money too, and without being willing to make the compromises you’re willing to make. In the end, the arguments against the Free Software branding put forth by ESR and others will look very silly and expedient.
It’s just a shame “Open Source” advocates are still trying to mislead the public about the Free Software movement. The behavior is like what you would expect from an un-grateful child.
spartan2276 said,
June 11, 2008 at 3:39 pm
after reading some of these replies it seems that Phobos is correct, paying for the codecs is the right an legal thing to do for mark and his company if the netbook remix is to be successful. He is also not forcing it on us users if you don’t want to use it then don’t, Ubuntu is a great distro and by far better than most. I can also understand where most of you are coming from, but freedom is freedom, if someone chooses the wrong thing it is still their choice so it is still freedom, so we can all sit here and argue/debate with each other as to what freedom is. But ultimately if you have a choice then you still have freedom! FOSS is freedom to rid yourself of the monopolistic entities which plagues our society and is great, but it cannot be forced on everyone or anyone, because when and if you do it is no longer freedom! Communisim(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communisim#Terminology) is great in terms of ideology, but if you force FOSS on people then it becomes a DICTATORSHIP nothing more nothing less. Just something to think about, I’m sure even Rick Stallman would agree.
Balzac said,
June 11, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“I’m sure even Rick Stallman would agree.” - spartan2276
No one here is trying to force Mark Shuttleworth or anyone else to do anything. Since you brought up the question of what RMS would agree with, I’ll pass it on to him and we’ll see what he says.
spartan2276 said,
June 11, 2008 at 4:40 pm
@Balzac
“Since you brought up the question of what RMS would agree with, ”
No one brought up any question that was just my assumption and no one said anyone was forcing Mark or his company to do anything, what I was referring to what Phobos was stating. Freedom is Freedom, you are free to say what you like right and do what you like, I bet you can’t do the same in china or cuba right. So what we have here is freedom of choice, an according to some of your comments it seems to me like most of you are choosing not to use Ubuntu as a distro which again you have the freedom to do so, so why can’t Mark pay for codecs to give people choice now if that choice turns out to be bad then that is his and Canonicals choice, so if you can’t understand that then I think we have ourselves a serious issue at hand.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:09 pm
@Phobos
“They have and ideology and a philosophy.. but the GPL is neither of those, it is a Free Software LICENSE.”
Which part of “The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom” didn’t you understand. It’s right there … in the GPL. Read it.
Expressing opinions about other licenses in one’s own, goes beyond the remit of “just a license”. This, and much of the rest of the GPL, is clearly an expression of ideology as much as it is “just a license”.
I also cannot help but feel revulsion at the extent to which you deem it necessary to distance the GPL from the principles it extols. It’s as if you can only just tollerate the GPL, as long as you don’t actually have to subscribe to any of that “Communist/zealot” idealism stuff. You can’t have it both ways, Phobos. Either you embrace the principles of the GPL that you benefit from, or you denounce the whole affair as unacceptable “Communism”, and move on.
So what’s it going to be?
Pretending that Free Software has nothing to do with the ideology of Freedom, just for the convenience of your own conscience, is an exercise in denialism.
And I didn’t accuse you of “liking Microsoft”, but by your actions (or rather inaction) you are indirectly helping them (and other Intellectual Monopolists) achieve their goals. Or IOW, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, and by pro-actively fighting against those (like me) who seek an end to Intellectual Monopolies, you are helping them in more than just a passive sense. I have no idea if that means you “like” them, or whether you are just too apathetic to care if they succeed in their monopolistic agenda.
“I’m not calling you zealot because we think different. I’m calling you zealot because you write like all the other zealots”
So you admit that the sole basis for your claim is bigoted stereotyping.
But what I find even more repulsive, is that you could make any kind of association whatsoever between “Freedom” and “bigotry”. I find this kind of thinking very sick indeed. Is the Bill of Rights an expression of “bigotry” too? Or is it only those who support the Bill of Rights who are “zealots”.
“Codecs are needed to keep using what people are using now… you need to make a soft transition, not an imposing one”
First of all, that is a rather presumptuous statement. What “people” are you talking about? If such “people” want to live in a proprietary world, then let them. There’s no one holding a gun to their head and forcing them to use Free Software. You make it sound as though it is literally impossible to use GNU/Linux without proprietary support. I can testify from first hand experience that this is clearly not the case.
Secondly, WRT “transitions” … yes evolutionary change is less of an imposition than revolutionary change. However it is also a very slow process, during which sometimes intractable compromises are made that irreparably damage the final goal. It is my contention that it is better to firmly establish the principles at the beginning then gradually persuade others to embrace those principles, than to start with a weak hand that only gets weaker as the stakes get higher. And in the corporate world of Intellectual Monopolists, the stakes are very, very high indeed - hence the thuggish behaviour that borders on racketeering (and requires antitrust investigations).
Certainly the “imposition” of this revolutionary change will not likely result in an initially high adoption rate. May I ask why this is important to you? What does it matter to you that others use Windows?
I’m certainly eager to convert the willing over to GNU/Linux, but the mere existence of Windows and its users doesn’t bother me, and neither does this concept of “market share”. Indeed, why should market share matter to Free Software at all. Free Software exists … it is there for anyone who wishes to use it … mission accomplished. There is no agenda of Free Software market domination that I’m aware of, surely things like that only matter to monopolies like Microsoft, who frantically play this whack-a-mole game in order to “fscking kill” anything that threatens their (vast) bottom line.
Indeed, the only time that I actually “care” about market share, is when monopolies abuse their market power to suppress Free Software and Open Standards, just like Microsoft does. In this sense, and only in this sense, do I “care” about market share, since this particular abuse (an illegal abuse I might add) potentially threatens the future of Free Software. The specific numbers are wholly irrelevant, as long as Free Software is not compromised, then it will always be there for those who want it.
And can you please stop claiming that I’m “mixing things up”. I know very well that standards; licenses; patents; trademarks; trade secrets; and RAND covenants are different, but at one time or another all of those things have been abused by Intellectual Monopolists to repress Free Software. Just because they are all different, that doesn’t mean that I’m not “allowed” to use them all in the same sentence. OOXML; Mono; Moonlight; and MP3 may all be a threat to Free Software for different reasons, but they are nonetheless still a threat. You whitewashing the issue with pedantry isn’t going to change that.
Balzac said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“why can’t Mark pay for codecs to give people choice now if that choice turns out to be bad then that is his and Canonicals choice, so if you can’t understand that then I think we have ourselves a serious issue at hand. ” - spartan2276
No one can stop Mark Shuttleworth from paying for codecs. So the answer to your question “whey can’t Mark pay for codecs” is that the premise of your question is invalid.
Now for the next part of your run-on sentence which begins with a question and ends with a statement - Since I can’t understand your premise or your punctuation, I would say that it is not we, but you, who has a serious issue at hand.
How will you take this issue seriously?
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm
@Miles
“Slated’s view that if you aren’t willing to give up you right to view your media (which is encoded in a proprietary format), you aren’t entitled to run Linux is just warped and hateful.”
That is a gross misrepresentation.
This has nothing to do with what rights people (as in end-users) have to mix proprietary and/or otherwise encumbered software with Free Software. This is about whether or not GNU/Linux distro vendors or other distributors should be shipping and promoting such software, thereby encouraging its use.
What end-users subsequently do with software in the privacy of their own homes, is another matter, and nobody’s business but their own.
However, I would still be inclined to discourage the use of such software. Discouraging is not quite the same thing as dictating though. Indeed, I view it as the moral obligation of all Free Software advocates to encourage its use, which is AFAICT exactly what I am doing.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:31 pm
@Aleksey
“GNU and Linux were originally developed using proprietary software”
The surface of the Earth was originally covered in molten lava, but that doesn’t mean things didn’t change for the better over time.
spartan2276 said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:37 pm
@Balzac
So clearly this means that if people don’t agree with one another then we should go to insults. I certainly was not paying attention to what I was writing then and I’m not now at least in a grammatical sense. My argument still stands and again if you can’t understand it then most of you have some real issues to work out. It is in plain English, grammatical errors or not.
Freedom is Freedom, the GPL is freedom from monopolistic entities(Microsoft,IBM etc…) but if you start trying to force it on everyone then it is no longer freedom because then at that point it is no longer a choice which will then defeat the whole purpose of what the GPL stands for altogether. Was this clear enough for you Balzac and everyone who wants to insult?
The GPL is great, but to force it on people is not which is part of what Phobos was saying which is the part that agree with, now everything else you guys can go ahead and debate/argue until the sun sets and rises.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:45 pm
@spartan2276
“why can’t Mark pay for codecs”
Mark may pay for whatever he likes. What he does or doesn’t pay for, is none of my concern.
“to give people choice”
People (i.e. end-users) already have choice. What Canonical is doing is not “offering choice”, it is tainting Free Software by default, and promoting the use of proprietary and/or encumbered software.
I absolutely guarantee you that if this commercial codec package was omitted from Netbook Remix, I would still be able to access proprietary media using Free Software obtained elsewhere, if I had any proprietary media that is. I know this for a fact from past experience.
This codec package is not a necessary inclusion, it is a point of convenience only, and a nod of compliance to the Intellectual Monopolists who erode our Freedom, little by little, with each compromise we make.
spartan2276 said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:46 pm
@Balzac
trust me when I tell you, I’m all for Ubuntu not having proprietary code in it’s inner workings, but that is not up to me. I also hate the fact that this Dumb ASS Miguel De Icaza is working on this Mono/Moonlight project.
But people let’s get down to reality here all they care about is money and not freedom. As for Mark the question is still out on him, because he already has money(although I bet he will argue that you can’t never have too much money). But he is at least trying to do something positive. If he is making the right decision or not time will tell and if you guys can change his mind about not using those codecs then by all means do so. Because it would be really sad if Linux becomes proprietary.
spartan2276 said,
June 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm
@Slated
you are absolutely 100% correct, but that is still their choice not ours. And that is not my argument I too can choose not use the restricted codecs package but I don’t and that is freedom, which is for an individual to do what they want when they want to even if it is breaking the law. But again that is Mark and Canonicals choice to make and all we can do is protest against it and not use Ubuntu as a distro. So according to you and everyone else Canonical is not giving people choice because according to the GPL it is not choice we understand and agree.
Keep up the good fight, great work you are doing here Roy+Crew! FUCK NOVELL SELL OUTS
spartan2276 said,
June 11, 2008 at 6:14 pm
@Roy
Did you see this?
http://bigbolshevik.blogs.friendster.com/a_man_and_his_penguin/2008/06/boycott_boycott.html
What is this all about? It seems that you are attracting people’s attention!
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 6:28 pm
@spartan2276
“Freedom is Freedom, the GPL is freedom from monopolistic entities(Microsoft,IBM etc…) but if you start trying to force it on everyone then it is no longer freedom because then at that point it is no longer a choice which will then defeat the whole purpose of what the GPL stands for altogether.”
This is the most ridiculously warped view of Free Software advocacy that I have ever witnessed.
First of all, advocacy is not “force”, it is merely debate.
Secondly, Canonical are more than happy to benefit from the work and altruism of Free Software developers (without whom Ubuntu would simply not exist), but then they reward that same community who facilitated their distro in the first place, with proprietary and/or encumbered software that taints that Free Software, and binds those users to additional restrictions.
Can you not see what a slap in the face this is to Free Software developers and users?
Can you also not see how this compromises your Freedom, since this is tantamount to an admission of liability for something you should not actually be liable for? You are being exploited by the Intellectual Monopolists … and Canonical is helping them.
Tell me this, when was the last time you paid for something that you didn’t actually receive? Are you quite content to be exploited in such a fashion?
In the case of MP3 “patents”, you are paying for something that is fundamentally fictitious (Intellectual Property … i.e. “thin air”), and even if you don’t actually hand over any money, your Freedom (i.e. “rights”) have still been compromised by non-Free licenses and/or patents. Maybe you’d like to run that software on alternative hardware architectures unsupported by the vendor … well tough, you can’t do that, since the software is not Free, and you are both technically and legally prohibited from doing so. That is not Freedom. That is not what Free Software is all about. That is not be something that Canonical, or any GNU/Linux distro vendor should be either facilitating or promoting. Period.
It is a rather upside-down view of things to claim that protecting Free Software is somehow limiting “choice”, when it is actually the tainting of Free Software with proprietary and/or encumbered software that removes that choice, by compromising Free Software and placing your control and rights into other people’s hands, especially when those other “people” have malicious intent (i.e. the Intellectual Monopolists). That is not advocating “choice”, it is advocating the supplementation of Free Software with proprietary and/or encumbered software. It is advocating the revocation of your Freedom, and voluntarily becoming a slave to those who seek to exploit you.
Canonical should not be distributing and promoting proprietary and/or encumbered software. Period. If end-users want to install such software of their own accord, then that is their own choice (yes they do already have that choice - which makes your whole line of reasoning rather moot).
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 6:47 pm
@spartan2276
Ref: the link to a Blog that no one has ever heard of.
Some guy called “Christopher”, who is 22; loves cats; and aspires to “date women” (according to his profile [1]), thinks BN is about “Communism” and that Roy is “autistic”.
Well I must say, that blog convinced me. That’s it, I’m off … no more BoycottNovell for me. I shall dedicate the rest of my life to reading about “Christopher’s” autistic cats, or whatever profoundly essential topics he has waiting for me in the treasure chest of his world renowned Blog.
However, a serious word of caution to those contemplating visiting that site …
Clicking on his “Profile” link takes you here:
[1] http://profiles . friendster . com / 9370811
*** WARNING! Do not follow this link***
Which subsequently redirects here:
http://scan . winspywarescanner . com / 266 / 5022 /
*** WARNING! Do not follow this link***
Which is a known scam site “selling” fake anti-spyware software.
Maybe someone aught to tell “Christopher” that his site, and possibly even his autistic cats, have been compromised.
RyanT said,
June 11, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Adding in proprietary codecs would only be limiting choice if you couldn’t in any way choose any other form of codec, or re-encode the file to another one.
You are removing choice, because you are not allowing people to view content in formats they already use, amongst many others. You are causing more harm than good - you are putting up flimsy, unnecessary barriers, especially when you consider that without those codecs, then how are people supposed to change their files into new, open formats instead?
The only way to do it is transition, which is exactly what Netbook Remix is doing. Including the codecs for people that need, and including the open formats too, ready and waiting to be converted to. They wouldn’t be able to do that without the proprietary codecs in the first place so they can read and convert them, meaning no transition, no more FOSS converts,etc etc.
Why do you think OpenOffice includes support for MS Office foramts? Because people still have documents in taht format, and the only way you’re going to get new people and get them to transfer over completely, you have to be compatible with said formats in the first place, otherwise there’s no way to access or change formats.
By not having the codecs, they would be blocking themselves from a much larger audience ripe for transition.
Aleksey said,
June 11, 2008 at 7:51 pm
@Slated
““GNU and Linux were originally developed using proprietary software”
The surface of the Earth was originally covered in molten lava, but that doesn’t mean things didn’t change for the better over time.”
While I might disagree on the first part, I’d like to say that the second part was exactly my point. Things have changed in FOSS towards the better, but that doesn’t mean they are done changing. And discarding a part that isn’t done changing yet, hurts the cause as a whole.
BTW, I chose Linux because it was the right tool for the right job for me, not because it’s a crime to use proprietary software. I love the freedom philosophy it has behind it and hope it spreads further and further, but I don’t let that get in my way when I have no choice but to use proprietary software for say, music and video producation. Sometimes you have to live practically, not idealogically, otherwise I’d get fired.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 9:13 pm
@Miles
Let’s examine your personal attack on me in detail:
“Slated’s view that if you aren’t willing to give up you right to view your media (which is encoded in a proprietary format), you aren’t entitled to run Linux is just warped and hateful.”
I’ve already addressed your misconception about “rights” above (this is about the vendor promoting and facilitating encumbered software, not what the end-user may or may not do).
What interests me far more than your misconception, is your use of the word “hateful”.
Please explain to me who exactly it is you think I “hate”.
Do you think I “hate” Mark Shuttleworth, a man who has probably done more for the promotion of GNU/Linux than nearly anyone else in the community?
IMHO this “codecs” decision by Canonical is certainly a mistake, but I hardly think that qualifies as a reason to “hate” either Mark, Canonical or Ubuntu (or even it’s users and developers).
“Dissent” does not equivocate to “hatred”, Miles. That just your paranoia and defensiveness. I suggest you redirect your paranoia and defensiveness where it is needed most, towards the Intellectual Monopolists who want to take away your Freedom. If I was to “hate” anyone it would be them, and I believe I would be fully justified.
When it comes to vendors pushing commercially “licensed” patents in Free Software, regardless of who is making that transgression, I profoundly disagree with that decision; always will; and will voice my dissent against it in the hope of influencing a reversal of that misguided decision. But that is not hatred.
Do you think that all those politicians who yell at each other in parliament/congress “hate” each other? Most of them probably have a meal together in the same restaurant after work, laughing and joking about the day’s events.
“Slated is an elitist”
That is a blatant falsehood and misrepresentation.
I am not mandating who may or may not use GNU/Linux. I am campaigning against the default inclusion and promotion of proprietary and/or encumbered software in Free Software distributions. As I’ve said (several times now) it is entirely up to the end-user what he or she does with his own Free Software in the privacy of his or her own home. But Free Software distributors should not be promoting and facilitating the use of non-Free software.
“and clearly does not want the average Joe to be able to run Linux”
Your utter lack of faith in the capabilities of Free Software is noted. So you really do believe that Free Software can not work properly without proprietary and/or encumbered software? That is a sad revelation indeed.
“(as he himself stated above).”
That is also a blatant lie.
What I stated was that “Free Software is not a popularity contest, it is about Freedom.” This has nothing to with what I “want” for the “average Joe”. I do not want anything (either way) for the average Joe, beyond the availability of untainted Free Software. It is your contention that average Joe can’t survive without proprietary and/or encumbered software, not mine. If anything, it is you who is the “elitist” for making such demands on average Joe to use proprietary software. I, on the other hand, have clearly stated my disinterest in what average Joe does in the privacy of his own home.
“The Free Software community has been plagued by people like him”
I might easily equate people like you to a “plague” also, since it is they who are completely indifferent to the erosion of their own liberty, and the integrity of Free Software, by Intellectual Monopolists. Apathy is certainly more like a “plague” than advocating Freedom, that’s for sure. I can’t see anything destructive about my efforts. Yours OTOH seems to be geared towards the destruction of Free Software, whether you intend it to or not.
“they are hurting the advance of Free Software.”
The problem is that your definition of “advance”, and mine, are radically different.
My idea of “advancing” Free Software is to protect and promote it, to ensure it remains Free and untainted.
Your definition of “advance” seems to be about the utterly irrelevant concept of “market share”, which AFAICT should not matter to anyone except monopolists like Microsoft.
“He seems to be the type of person who runs Linux merely because it allows him to feel that he is better than everyone else. “I run Linux, so I’m cooler than you” ”
Oh dear, what a childish (not to mention utterly inaccurate) analysis.
I am not some child who contemplates “cool factors”, I am a grown man who has worked in UNIX and Linux consultancy probably longer than you have even lived on this green planet.
The first computers I ever worked with could not possibly even run Windows, primarily because it simply didn’t exist at that time, and if it had existed then it would have been incompatible with DECs architecture.
I have succeeded in living and working most of my life without hardly even being exposed to Windows at all, and if it hadn’t been for an unfortunate accident with a mug of coffee and a rather elderly 16-bit computer around eight years ago, I would still be quite oblivious to Microsoft’s finest Bloatware.
Considerations of “coolness” had absolutely zero to do with any of that.
“These people have major self-esteem issues”
Again, a very childish, and wholly unsubstantiated personal attack. You do not know the first thing about who I am, beyond my opinions of Free Software.
I am not here for my own benefit, since I have the knowledge and means to deploy GNU/Linux autonomously, if I so wished, without any intervention from Canonical or anyone else. Indeed I have done so on many occasions, as required by my work. If you’d care to actually learn something, rather than spouting ad hominem attacks against complete strangers, I recommend you read this:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
I am here because I see it as a moral duty to both promote and protect Free Software. I have benefited greatly from Free Software over the years, and this is just one of the ways in which I can give something back to the community. You may not like what I have to say, but then not everything that is good for you is pleasant.
“as can clearly be seen by Slated’s temper tantrum”
I’m far too old to indulge in such things as “tantrums”. How you can deduce this from my writings, I have no idea. I use italics and bold for emphasis, and I believe I used the word “bloody” above as a sarcastic reference to MP3, but I can assure you that as I sit here I am, as always, perfectly calm.
“and from what I can tell - he has them quite often.”
And you deduced this how, exactly?
Please, if you wish to debate then do so, but by lowering yourself to ad hominem attacks, you only concede what little argument you may have.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 9:43 pm
@Aleksey
“discarding a part that isn’t done changing yet, hurts the cause as a whole”
The problem is that this particular “change” is for the worse, not better. Tainting Free Software, thus creating additional restrictions for those who depend on the openness and freeness of that software, is far more hurtful than the trivial imposition of end-users having to make their own personal arrangements to acquire any non-Free software they think they might need.
As for whether or not it’s a “crime” to use proprietary software, well despite the fact that you probably meant that sarcastically, it may nonetheless be true under certain circumstances, since the restrictions of proprietary software may be such that you are in violation of that license, at which point your Freedom (which has already been compromised by your acceptance of that proprietary license) is then further compromised by the imposition of having to make changes to satisfy those license conditions.
One example of this would be if Microsoft changed their licensing conditions for Windows Media codecs, and those unfortunate GNU/Linux users who had misguidedly licensed those codecs from Microsoft (even indirectly from Fluendo) found themselves further obligated to Microsoft (either financially, or in some other way).
Proprietary software is tricky that way.
You claim that you had “no choice but to use proprietary software”, and since I am not you then I will have to take that statement on face value, but I must admit I find it very hard to believe.
As a professional who has worked in the industry for many years, and used computers extensively in private life too, I cannot think of any task which can’t be satisfied by Free Software.
But your personal choices are your own, of course.
Nonetheless, this does not excuse Free Software distributors from their wholly contradictory and destructive promotion and facilitation of non-Free software.
Roy Schestowitz said,
June 11, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I’m catching up with this discussion at the moment and it’s still upsets that religious and political terms are used to dismiss opinions about technical things. Were women who fought for equality “zealots”? Was the fight against slavery “communism”? I really don’t get it and I can only imagine where these stereotypes come from.
The only passionate (or supposedly “zealous”) fight is one for control by a vendor. The ‘default’ was Free software a few decades ago. Why is resistance to shackling “not pragmatic”? Or “rebellious”?
As I said at the start, there are no easy decisions in this case. I certainly don’t hate anyone. I never hated Novell, either. So please, enough with the labels. It’s a debate, not an attack.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at 10:03 pm
@RyanT
“You are removing choice, because you are not allowing people to view content in formats they already use, amongst many others.”
I am neither removing nor disallowing anything.
I am campaigning for Free Software to be distributed in an untainted form, by Free Software vendors who are currently facilitating and promoting proprietary and/or encumbered software.
This goes equally for OpenOffice.org.
As I’ve said many; many times now, what the end-user decides to do with that software, and whether or not he decides to also use non-Free software, is entirely up to him.
Facilitating and promoting proprietary and/or encumbered software does nothing to encourage Free Software adoption, since it only serves to make end-users further dependant on those non-Free components. By distributing Free Software in an untainted state (as it should rightfully be) we are encouraging end-users to consider Free Software first and foremost … not as a poor cousin to non-Free software. If, and only if those end-users still need non-Free software, despite the best efforts of all concerned (i.e. upstream and distro maintainers), then those end-users are, as always, still free to obtain those proprietary and/or encumbered components from elsewhere.
This is not rocket science, it is nothing more than a mild inconvenience, and a very small price to pay to promote and protect Free Software. The alternative, OTOH, is to severely compromise Free Software for nothing more than the sake of convenience for one segment of the GNU/Linux community.
Compromising Freedom for any reason is unacceptable, but to do so for such trivial reasons is an utter travesty.
Balzac said,
June 11, 2008 at 10:16 pm
The “Open Source” (aka Mixed Source) crowd doesn’t see how the Free Software Movement is the headwaters for the river of wealth they aspire to partake in. They don’t understand how the authentically free software is clean and pure like water melting from snow-caps in the mountains, and they’re down in the valley drinking water already sullied by the “mixed source” opportunists who exist further downstream.
Slated said,
June 11, 2008 at