Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, I know it's silly to complain about 'news' headlines, but it sounded like the official distribution had been infected. That is not the case and http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ is still a safe provider of the software.

"The funds for my travel to Israel are coming from Palestinians who invited me to give talks for them."

Only RMS would jump right into the middle of such a hot mess. Perhaps he can ask the Syrian government for a free bus trip to the Israeli border like the "Nabka Day" protesters.

Four killed on Israel's border with Syria
Israeli-Palestinian violence marks "Nabka" day

Um yeah....isn't there some free software you could like...video stream the lectures to everyone?

This is tired old FUD that you Microsoft shills trot out all the time.

Can you name one technology that Microsoft innovated? And by the way, it doesn't count if they bought it from someone else.

Ok, now to your original question:
1. Alchemy
2. Bespin
3. Bitcoin
4. eyeOS
5. KDE Social Desktop
6. Ksplice
7. Unity
8. HTTP, the Web, TCP/IP, and ARPAnet
9. X Windows
10. Perl
11. Slashdot
12. Google keeps playing with open source, but can't make up their minds. Here are some
13. Microsoft plays with open source, here are some. This must just eat you up. Too bad, Open Source is everywhere.
14. Here are some more innovative open source projects.

Now, I expect you to provide at least 5 innovative projects Microsoft created within the last 10 years. (Sorry, you can't count Windows or Office, since those ideas are much older, and are no longer considered innovative.)

Failing that, at least read what I wrote.

he did a post to the vlc-devel list here, http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2011-April/079616.html It private rsa key is there, might be a good thing to download, if you are worried apple might do something stupid.

Here's the key on the VideoLan boards.

Airport RSA Key

I've been trying to find some way to play blu ray disks on my new PC build without having to buy PowerDVD 10 (why should I have to buy some software I don't want in the first place just to play a disk I already own? Not happening). I know these disks are loaded with DRM, but Is there any free alternative out there? I know of libbluray http://www.videolan.org/developers/libbluray.html , but to be honest I'm not sure how to get it working. Does anyone out there know how to A) get this to work, or B) know of a different opensource/free solution to play blu ray disks? Feel free to note me if the method would make the MPAA go into a conniption fit. ;)

He's just a troll though.

Doesn't seem like a troll to me.

You need to find an example of someone without an axe to grind against Apple.

But what he said is true. The distributor's DRM scheme violates the licensing. If that's the case, then you can't just include LGPL libraries and such without seeking out the copyright holder(s) to see if they will make a exemption for you.

Don't forget that VLC themselves were fine with the app.

Except the VLC developer mailing list shows otherwise, where did you get that information from?

Malware makers can impersonate legitimate software makers. For example, google for VLC, and look at how many fake sites there are (the real one is http://www.videolan.org/). Right now, the highest suspicious one is only #5, but if they can SEO themselves above the real site (or buy an ad placement)...

Run a two-pass and single pass on something like Wrath of Khan or Alien (or even Aliens)...the white noise in the viewscreens causes massive jumps in bitrate on a two-pass.

You can verify the results using bitrate viewer, and I think you'll see that an average quantizer won't change the bitrate as much from frame to frame, and you'll still suffer from the problem of the first 90 minutes moving towards the quantizer you picked on average, even if a larger quantizer would have done just as well. This results in a larger filesize than you really need for the same quality. The "constant ratefactor" mode of x264 is a better method for best quality in the smallest filesize on a one-pass encode.

There's a reason that "average quantizer" (or "constant ratefactor" for x264) isn't an option in a two-pass encode. Two-pass attempts to maximize quality on every frame while remaining within a certain filesize (average bitrate and total filesize are just two different ways of saying the same thing, given the same input frames), while an average quantizer attempts to keep each frame at the same bits/pixel/complexity (where "complexity" is a vaguely defined term), while constant ratefactor tries to make each frame look equally good/bad regardless of the bits required. Check out this good writeup on how x264 does it.

This not to say that one-pass doesn't have its uses...I use it for all my TV show recordings, since those aren't for archive.

...It's already there. I can watch HTML5 video in Safari just fine now using any codec I've installed including Ogg, and HTML5 is really the only way to easily watch video on iPhones. It is an open standard implemented by multiple parties and has been for quite a while.

That's right. I can watch .ogv (Ogg video) files via Firefox 3.6 and using VLC (that very good open-source, cross-platform a/v player) http://www.videolan.org/vlc/. I didn't have to install any additional codecs. It's great for watching videos from conferences and expositions (and VLC has a full scripting API for browsers that don't yet support HTML5's <video> element). Both Firefox and VLC also handle fuill-screen playback quite well now.

Exactly how old do you think the iPad is? Or for that matter iOS and for that matter Linux is including Linux on mobile devices?

Simple proof? Which has the most mature and capable media player for FREE? Meego (VLC Mplayer), iOS or Android?

Well, since Android has mplayer and VLC and just needs the bugs shaken out of them...

Your post is right out false.

Distributing proprietary codecs (especially encoders under a "you can do everything" license like GPL or BSDL) is illegal. Now we can bicker about where exactly etc., but the US is a pretty influential part of the world (together with Japan, and soon the EU if things keep going as they are).
While VLC can get away with their "screw the US, Japan, France, ..." attitude, most Free OSs can't.

*Certain* Free OSs and browsers cannot distribute proprietary codecs without having paid for them, and distributing them wrapped up in VLC is no different. Yes, they can (and do) call external applications if the user happens to have them installed (thus shifting the illegal part to the single user).
Works OK, but I hope you see the problem lies in distribution.
Also, isn't fighting this dismal state of things the only logical action to take?

Can you name any files that might be more popular than those infringing the copyrights of the MPAA studios, the major porn studios, the big four record labels, or the major video game publishers?

Perhaps I can.

It really doesn't seem to be so hard.

I mean, really: Did you even stop to look around at the world before you wrote that?

Because, frankly, I think the concept that you're attempting to quantify is bullshit.

Really, I do.

Peace.

I'm not going on a blog post. See the FSF's analysis.

Non-executables can exploit flaws in the decoder, for example if it has a buffer overflow letting you overwrite the application code. Perhaps the most famous is the GDI+ exploit in Windows where your computer could be taken over simply by watching a malicious JPEG.

For example the VLC project has a list of security advisories related to flaws in video files (videc codecs, audio codecs, demuxers+++). There are typically a few each year, not many but they're oh so ugly when it happens.

> x264 is an open source GPL-licensed H.264 encoder.

dual licensed by x264 LLC.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/x264-devel/2010-July/007508.html

I live in the EU and there are no such restrictions for H.264 use here - for example see VLCs position in their FAQ (they're based in France). The fact that over in the US you have to pay is no concern of mine or most other people in the world. Hear that sound? It's the sound of the world's smallest violin playing.

Too bad there isn't a fully compatible free alternative eliminating that single drawback...

its the only player i know so far, that works without any codec hassles on any computer. download, run, play anything on it. its almost magical.

Well, vlc is pretty good, but not perfect. It doesn't play .3gp files properly - no audio (many cell phones record video in .3gp):

http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41727

I was a Mac user until recently, and an Apple II user before I started with Macs. But lately, I just absolutely refuse to use anything with their brand on it because of this precise behavior.

What behavior? Apple clearly stated their terms for the use of the service. The VLC media player developers use a license which is not compatible with those terms. In fact, it was those developers who took the first action:

Today, a formal notification of copyright infringement was sent to Apple Inc. regarding distribution of the VLC media player for iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch.

Apple simply complied with the notification and took down the app in question. If the developers want their software in Apple's App Store then they should release it under a compatible license. I'm sure they can (and perhaps they have) also try to convince Apple to change the terms of the app store.

Every store has to have rules or it'd be complete anarchy. Sometimes these rules are going to get in the way of someone's idea of how it should all work. This is one of those times. Obviously Apple's rules work for a lot of cases since there are tons of apps, both good and bad, in the app store. There's nothing evil going on here, it's just two entities enforcing the terms of use for their properties.

This method doesn't work?

http://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=37055

Application provided codecs make as much sense as Application provided printer, sound, and graphics drivers.

Oh yeah? Tell that to the VLC developers.

It is all about code reuse and flexibility. And yes there was a time when each application did provide printer, sound, and graphics drivers. And by going with OS based codec support adding newer and better codecs will be a simple matter of adding the support to the OS. Just like printers, graphics, and sound are today.

This is true... until you stop seeing the web browser as just another Application. Google are slowly turning the browser into the OS, and Microsoft is coming around to that way of thinking.

For many people, home users and business users, the web browser is probably the #1 app on their machines. They use it for e-mail, they use it for Facebook, they use it for sharing photos, they use it for shopping and gaming and booking tickets and a million other things. It's loaded when they log on and only unloaded when they shut down. It's their reason for owning a computer, and it's entertainment, communication and productivity rolled into one.

IMHO, the truth is ChromeOS has Microsoft scared. They know that the "browser as OS" paradigm isn't going to take hold next year when the hardware hits, but glance 10 years down the road and things look a lot murkier. Suddenly, building functionality into the browser itself doesn't look so crazy, because the browser could be conceivably be performing all the functions we currently expect from the native OS, while combining the advantages of cloud and local computing.

This plugin is simply Microsoft creating as many disincentives to Chrome adoption as possible. If improving a competitor's product gives them an overall advantage, that's what they'll do.

Well, the VideoLAN association president Jean-Baptiste Kempf have posted an analysis that indicates that Rémi Denis-Courmonts "defence of his chosen license" might be misguided.

This kind of thing makes companies afraid to every use GPLed software because some random developer can come along at any time and initiate legal action against you.

The source code is freely available. Why the hell do we care about the binary? What if you have to run an encrypted binary for a secure, embedded solution, is that against the GPL as well?

This analysis shows that the case for App Store infringing on the GPLv2.0 is weak.

http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2010-November/077457.html

But my political opinion on AppStores is not relevant to the legality of
VLC on those AppStores. And guess what, nor is FSF political opinion!

I really dislike when people use VLC to advance their _own_ political
agenda. And that is true when it is Apple, Microsoft, Google or the FSF.
There is a minimum of politeness that is essential and that was not
respected...
And I HATE bullshitors...

I really like RMS past work and actions, but I don't like how the FSF is
using the situation here.

I also strongly believe that the freedom is to open VLC on as many
platforms as possible.

And as VideoLAN does not force copyright assignments, I believe VLC is
more open that many FSF/GNU projects...

Finally, and more importantly, if there is any actual legal issue regarding
VLC and one AppStore term, it should be removed from this AppStore.

Oh, and btw, I do not thank people who force me to write such posts,
when I have better to do, like working on Blu-Ray playback...
Oh, and btw, the next person that says it is obvious and simple, I will
force them to compile VLC+Contribs for Win32 3 times. .....

And guess what, the AppStore terms have changed!

Try to grep "Products contain security technology" and "in addition to any other"
on the above document.
If you don't know how to grep, try "man grep" and "man curl"

Maybe the FSF statements made Apple change the ToS, maybe Rémi's
complaint, maybe... $(put whatever you want here).

Conclusion of part I.
---------------------
The FSF statement is not valid anymore, and therefore the
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/vlc-enforcement/ is just plainly
wrong (or FUD)

Those who submitted VLC to Apple are not in compliance with the license but Apple is also a distributor, so they are both infringing. But Apple is the focus of this /. thread, so I focus on Apple here.

The Apple App Store is not some organization where Apple can't determine what submitters have submitted and Apple somehow has no choice but to distribute everything that comes their way. Apple has no excuse like, say, a phone company selling service to a home where the phone company can't tell ahead of time if the home users will use the phone service in some manner that aides copyright infringement. Apple has rules for determining which programs are on their App Store and, as objectionable as those rules are, they retain full power to decide what's in and out. Therefore Apple has ample opportunity to dig into licensing detail and discuss submissions with submitters.

Furthermore, and more to your point about fraud, Apple's agreement with its upstream (those that submitted VLC to the Apple App Store) does not affect the copyright license under which VLC and its derivatives are distributed. Apple has to comply with that license, in this case the GNU GPL.

The GPL doesn't distinguish between distributors (GPLv2)/conveyors (GPLv3) allowing some to comply but not others (that would be an easily-exploited hole whereby GPLed free software would quickly become proprietary). All distributors/conveyors have the same obligations to add no restrictions to the license. Apple did not do that, therefore Apple is infringing just as Apple infringed the GPL when they distributed GNU Go.

The difference here is in how the copyright holders chose to react: the FSF, as per usual, sought license compliance when they were defending their license with GNU Go ("We have not sued Apple, nor have we sent them any legal demand that they remove the programs from the App Store." -- Brett Smith, FSF License Compliance Engineer). The FSF wanted Apple to change the terms of their App Store rules so they could simultaneously comply with the GPL and their own rules. Apple declined and stopped distributing GNU Go. Rémi Denis-Courmont took a different approach by sending "a formal notification of copyright infringement" to Apple as is Denis-Courmont's right.

Correct. This developer, Rémi Denis-Courmont, said so himself, three years ago. As far as I know, their licensing has not changed since then. It seems Denis-Courmont has forgotten himself.

But that preamble is from GPLv3, and vlc is under GPLv2. I don't think there's a similar statement in GPLv2.

http://www.videolan.org/support/faq.html

If you're looking for open source alternatives to iTunes: CDex, VLC and handbrake .

You forgot a big one Songbird

Have you actually tried using that? I have and its more sluggish then iTunes could ever be.

If you're looking for open source alternatives to iTunes: CDex, VLC and handbrake .

You forgot a big one Songbird

But there’s one piece of the Appleverse that I’ve always detested, and that’s the desktop version of iTunes. The ugly duckling of the iFamily, this program is hard to understand, hard to use, inelegant, and ill-behaved—in short, the very opposite of most other Apple products. I dread booting it up every day ...

Yeah, yesterday I bitched about this and have actively refused any upgrades to iTunes since 9 because I'm not sure if 10 is going to get better or worse.

Now I have to have Quicktime on my machine ... which I am not a fan of. And what's worse is that reviews are telling me that it's faster but with a crappier UI while at the same time Ping concerns me if it has my credit card information and is just a spam portal.

So while I want iTunes to run faster, I definitely don't want anything to do with this "Ping" service and if it's reminiscent of how they made me dependent on Quicktime (despite the fact that I have never used iTunes for anything video -- VLC kicks ass) I don't want auto-opted into something that I cannot get out of!

If you're looking for open source alternatives to iTunes: CDex, VLC and handbrake

My biggest problem is that support seems to wax and wane with actually moving songs/videos on and off an iPod with open source alternatives ... so that leaves me tied to the beast that is iTunes.

You can stream from your computer.

But will it stream x264 and/or xvid from the computer? That's the big question for me. The original AppleTV didn't, only Quicktime and MP4 IIRC.

Transcoding is your friend. Streaming transcoding is your close friend.

Disclaimer: I've never tried either program, I just did a quick google search. Or maybe TVersity or Orb will support the AppleTV.

I'm gonna plug VLC here.
Free, open-source, plays just about everything. Files, streams, discs, you name it. Also does conversion (apparently, never really tried it), streaming (VLC as the stream server, that is), and minor video editing (hue, brightness, rotation, filters, etc.; but I don't know if this is just for viewing or what). Also subtitles.

This is why I still got some hope on slashdot.

Really, WTF was that with all the noise? (get a new job, forget it, wife banging, etc etc...).

Parent's post is the solution. Where did all the geeks from slashdot went?

A quick search through my memory after parent's suggestion lead me to VLC streaming features ( someone posed a relevant question here.

Back around 2003 when I started reading slashdot I liked the comments because the sentiment around was that *nothing* was impossible with technology.

Nowadays I just read a bunch of grumpy kids or old guys without any interest in technology :(

So why are you telling us instead of Videolan? Nobody here wants to hear this crap. Go tell someone who cares (Videolan).

It's weird how VLC plays every codec under the sun, but not SHN.

http://trac.videolan.org/vlc/ticket/632

I use VLC or SMPlayer for pretty much everything video-related.

Does VLC not have a time stretch function for it's audio? If you haven't looked for this feature in VLC I suggest you try that first. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ If that doesn't help, you can always use MAX/MSP/Jitter to make your own, or bust out the DVD that came with your mac and write a simple video player Xcode (Due to the joys of object oriented programming, this is easier than it seems it would be).

Said http://addons.videolan.org/ just redirects to http://www.videolan.org/ as of now. Hopefully just an oversight.

Said http://addons.videolan.org/ just redirects to http://www.videolan.org/ as of now. Hopefully just an oversight.

If you read the release notes it states to that effect....

SHOUTcast Radio is a web site which provides a directory of radio stations avalaible on the Internet.

...
Starting from VLC 1.1.0, the SHOUTcast module is not available on the distributed VLC any longer, because AOL Corporation is hindering Open Source Software.

...
Since it is obviously impossible for VLC to comply with such licensing terms, we had to remove the support from the default VLC.

However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.

We want to emphasise the fact that features like SHOUTcast or icecast browsing are now doable using our new extension framework and you will find user-contributed extensions on http://addons.videolan.org/

(In other words.... *HINT* *HINT*

If you read the release notes it states to that effect....

SHOUTcast Radio is a web site which provides a directory of radio stations avalaible on the Internet.

...
Starting from VLC 1.1.0, the SHOUTcast module is not available on the distributed VLC any longer, because AOL Corporation is hindering Open Source Software.

...
Since it is obviously impossible for VLC to comply with such licensing terms, we had to remove the support from the default VLC.

However, we are providing a way to integrate the "icecast directory" that provides an open source equivalent to SHOUTcast. If you know and like a radio station currently listed on the SHOUTcast directory, please make sure this radio is also available on the icecast directory and let the radio owner know about how AOL treats their content.

We want to emphasise the fact that features like SHOUTcast or icecast browsing are now doable using our new extension framework and you will find user-contributed extensions on http://addons.videolan.org/

(In other words.... *HINT* *HINT*

I'm not talking about icecast as a directory client. I'm talking about the module that was removed from VLC. Read the press release from VideoLAN:

SHOUTcast Radio is a web site which provides a directory of radio stations avalaible on the Internet. It provides categorizations of such stations, so it is easier to find one that matches your interest. According to users feedback, the integration of such directory inside VLC is one of the best features of the software.

Listening to Shoutcast or icecast streams is done by many projects. I doubt you'd need a license from Nullsoft to do so.

Why is this even an issue? Isn't VLC based in France?

Were they using the source code from Nullsoft? Couldn't they rewrite the code themselves?

TFA says:

We want to emphasise the fact that features like SHOUTcast or icecast browsing are now doable using our new extension framework and you will find user-contributed extensions on http://addons.videolan.org/

If you don't like Matroska, you can download the lower resolution AVI file (XVid codec) linked at the site. But I'm curious, what computer system of recent vintage can't play a Matroska file? I can play the 720p version (x264 codec) without any problems on my five-year-old AMD Sempron 3000 (1.8 GHz single core) system. This is using stock MPlayer under 64-bit Ubuntu with a mere 750 MB of DDR1 (!) RAM. For other systems, VLC can play most non-subbed and plain text-subbed video files you can download off the 'Net. (Some anime fans hate VLC for its "alleged" inability to play fancy "soft subs".)

People have written open source H.264 encoders and decoders. Software patents literally make these open source projects illegal. Why should anyone have a monopoly so they can charge for what others are willing to give away for free?

Though this is somewhat off-topic, there is the notification of related to patents at the VLC players home page, stating that the user is responsible of any licencing (MPEG-LA) required to use the software, see http://wiki.videolan.org/Intellectual_Properties. So basically, open source is not an illegal way to implement video software in general, but a different way to distribute the consequences of a possible ip enforcement. The situation is analogous to the payment of Value Added Taxes. Normally the seller pays the tax, so the byers don't have to think about it. Sometimes the customer pays the taxes.

Why is everyone so eager to suddenly replace one proprietary format for another?

H264 is not even close to proprietary. It is an open specification (actually an ISO standard[1]) that is entirely complete. You can even download an entirely open source implementation of the decoder[2] or the encoder[3], both of with are fully standards compliant and L/GPL licensed.

Now, the patent-license situation is not ideal, but it's worlds better than the situation with Flash, which is not an ISO standard (actually, actionscript is a bastardized javascript), of which there are no fully compliant open source implementations (sorry, Gnash really sucks, I wish it were good) and which is entirely under the control of Adobe, not the ISO.

IMO, we should be very eager to replace one proprietary system with a patent-encumbered open standard with opensource encoders/decoders. The best is not the enemy of the good -- and this is a hell of a good step in the right direction, even if it's a step from worse to merely bad.

[1] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50726 -- The full ISO144926-10 specification.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libavcodec, part of the FFMPEG project -- licensed under the LPGL.

[3] http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html, licensed under the GPL.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/streaming.html

That's a pretty dang good point.

No, it's not..

Oh, that's right: VLC is developed by a megacorporation with close knowledge of Apple's secret internal APIs, and not a small team of Open Source developers. That's why their software can play back the same MP4 stream with 1/3 the CPU of Adobe's.

Except from what I have seen HTML V5 sucks ass? No offense but it does. I can play full screen SD H.264 flash on this 1.8GHz Sempron that I use as a netbox perfectly. It don't skip, or jerk, everything "just works". If I want to spend a whole $70 and add a AMD 4xxx AGP card I can do full screen 1080p on this same PC, no problem. The last time HTML V5 came up everyone was providing links to HTML V5 sites, so I tried them....yuck. Most had it in a little tiny window and even then it was a slideshow.

As far as licenses go I just don't see how they could need a license to use whatever codec the user has already. I mean I kinda doubt that all those free MP3 players have licenses for the MP3 codec, do they? If the user doesn't have a codec a simple like to KLite Codec Pack (for Windows) or VLC (on OSX or Linux) would solve the problem without forcing FF to carry a license, wouldn't it? And then we could give the users the choice. Those that wanted to remain RMS style "free" simply didn't have to use it, the rest of us would have nice hardware accelerated FF without hassle.

So I'm sorry, but until they can get HTML V5 or Theora to play as smooth and easy as H.264 on low power devices like my Sempron I'll pass. I'd say TFA was a step in the right direction, but in a way it ain't. They should have went for the "Big Three"...AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and gotten hardware acceleration on them FIRST. Since AMD and Intel have open specs it should be easier than Nvidia, and once two out of the three were on board Nvidia would have produced one just to have the "us too!" bullet point. Then millions of motherboards and discrete GPUs could come with Theora hardware acceleration out of the box, like they do with H.264 now. And it DOES make a BIG difference, believe me, as a PC builder and repairman I've seen firsthand. Video plays smoother, less chance of stuttering or dropped frames, better multitasking, it just makes the users experience much better, especially with the lower end machines which are VERY popular these days.

While I wish Theora and HTML V5 the best of luck, unless they get hardware acceleration like yesterday I have a feeling the ship has done sailed. The only real chance IMHO of open video taking off would be now open VP8 codec which if it has made the gains shown in previous versions could be an H.264 killer. If whatever container they use plays as well as VP6 in a flash container we've got a winner here. But considering the frankly incredible mish mash of differing hardware when it comes to mobile it would probably have been better to get the desktops/laptops/nettops on board first, and hopefully get enough momentum going that the hardware manufacturers would jump in and help with Theora support on cells and other mobile devices.