Re: [xine-devel] Re: "switch Totem over to using GStreamer as its default backend"

[Bastien N. <ha...@ha...>]

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 17:50 -0300, Miguel Freitas wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:17:02 +0100, Bastien Nocera <ha...@ha...> wrote:
> > > > Mind, the guys will be providing vendors with fully-licensed MPEG-4,
> > > > mp3, Windows Media, etc. And the fact that there aren't any
> > > > "problematic" plugins/code in the gstreamer-plugins means that a lot of
> > > > distributions will use the GStreamer backend. Not because the xine
> > > > backend isn't good, but because of legal problems.
> 
> as i understand, the basic argument for gstreamer is the LGPL thing.
> they need the core to be LGPL as it makes possible to use proprietary
> plugins, right? i believe supporting proprietary plugins can be
> justified for:
> 
> 1) incentive proprietary codec authors to port their own algorithms to
> linux. their "secrets" are kept safe and they would do it at their own
> expense in order to increase the user base. so are you expecting that
> microsoft or apple is going to provide free gstreamer plugins? you
> better sit and wait. the only example of such kind i can remember is
> the 3ivx plugin for openquicktime and xanim.
> 
> 2) you can, after working on gstreamer for free, make real money by
> selling proprietary plugins. doesn't it sound like a good plan?

Actually, it's not through the LGPL, but through the addition of an
exclusion clause in the license of my program.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.gstreamer.devel/11851

> the thing here is that these people _might_ be putting their own
> interests above the community welfare. why would i, as a user, want to
> use a fully-licensed but not open source mpeg-4/mpeg-2/mp3 plugin?
> specially when good free software alternatives exist?

Because, for the small premium, some commercial distributions might be
able to include that directly in their software package.

> the MPEG-LA, for example, consolidates all mpeg2 patents so you can
> license it from a single entity. therefore, a licensed mpeg2 decoder
> costs money, you have to pay some per copy fee to the MPEG-LA (check
> http://www.mpegla.com/m2). same goes for mp3.

That still doesn't make it compatible with the GPL that xine-lib and
ffmpeg use.

> of course, no sane distribution or company will pay a mpeg2 license
> fee so users can use the mpeg2 plugin for free. it makes no sense. a
> company licensing the mpeg2 decoder from MPEG-LA will have to sell it
> to users. only very rich companies can afford losing money to give
> away things cheaper than they cost (xbox anyone?)
> 
> therefore i don't think the gstreamer way is going to work for the
> large majority of users. they simply will not want to pay to be able
> to watch media that most people can watch for free (afaik windows
> media player is still free, right?)

There's still the Free Software plugins, which will be worked on,
included in gst-ffmpeg, and such.

> these distributions are making a huge mistake imho. their are
> embedding a mechanism to legitimate the money collection for a
> minority, and the non-free software usage, instead of fighting the
> good fight. and worse, pushing a specific software solution to the
> users based not on technical merits but rather on some strange
> interests.

"Fighting the good fight"? You mean battling against the software
patents existance? If so, I think you're very confused about the
position of those companies. I can give you Red Hat as an example, as
they are the ones paying my salary:
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html

And our legal counsels have been working against software patents in the
countries where they apply.

> i'm not defending the unlawfulness. those jedi, ops, i mean, legal
> counsel should be rather working with the licensers (in parts of the
> world where the software patent is enforceable, of course) to provide
> some kind of licensing pool to free software users. or like the
> lindows people are doing, they say they pay some per copy fee to make
> a xine player "licensed". i don't know, there must be a way because
> they are just doing it! it is happening right now, in the U.S. market,
> and i hear nobody complaining/suing them about this.

I'd like to know how Lindows did it. And I don't think that their
distribution of the software is 100% legal. Just consider the fact that
they're shipping MPEG-2 playback software, so either:
- it's licensed so that people cannot redistribute it, breaking the GPL.
- it's licensed under the GPL, breaking the licensing they might have
got.

> > Depends on your legal counsel I guess. I know that the ones I've been
> > talking to (from the FSF and Red Hat) don't think so.
> > Basically, the GPL is not compatible with requiring patent licenses to
> > be paid. That rules out software like ffmpeg, mad, etc.
> 
> 
> so if we split the xine-lib tarbal into xine-lib-engine and
> xine-lib-plugins the former would be legal in these counsel's pov? i
> don't mind, we can do it anytime (specially if a distro maker kindly
> ask us to do so) and then immediately the gstreamer argument is over.
> like Thibaut said, it is quite easy to separate these at RPM packaging
> level. the difference is subtle, but if the counsel is nitpicking
> about this we may discuss the change.

I've already put the change before you... In January 2003, re-read the
"rhythmbox: gstreamer vs xine" thread. Nothing happened from it.

> Bastien, i believe this is a serious discussion, feel free to forward
> it to whoever may like. i have received donations and been paid in the
> past for doing xine improvements, but my only concerns are that
> software must be chosen on technical basis and user's interests must
> be preserved (including the ability to run free software only).

See above. People are still able to run Free Software only, and,
currently, all the solutions based on GStreamer are Free Software only.
They're just not legal, and against the GPL, in some countries.

---
Bastien Nocera <ha...@ha...>