Slashdot Mirror
Open Source, Real Media Mega-player?
chill writes "CNN is reporting "RealNetworks on Monday will unveil a new open source version of its streaming media software that supports multiple file formats for audio and video, including those that use Microsoft's Windows Media technology." and "RealNetworks did not formally license the ability to offer Windows Media software, but instead re-created the technology based on data streams sent between the server and player software, The New York Times reported. A Microsoft representative told the newspaper that the company would need to determine whether RealNetworks licensed the software before taking action. " I can't wait to see the actual license." Update: 07/22 19:10 GMT by T : The software can be downloaded from the Helix site, if you're interested.
About the RealNetworks Release
Bruce Perens
Free Software Evangelist
22-July-2002
RealNetworks is announcing today that some of their software will be
released as Open Source or Free Software. While RealNetworks is making a
significant contribution to Open Source, today's release does not include
the "crown jewels" -- their "codecs", the encoding and decoding software
for their proprietary RealAudio and RealVideo formats. I will go into more
detail regarding what they are proposing to release, and when, in this
message.
I'd also like to say what my role is in this. It is not to endorse, but
to explain what's going on from an Open Source perspective. Some of the
pieces announced today will be Open Source, but many will not be. Thus,
I can't fully approve of what is going on. I will continue to lobby
RealNetworks to follow today's step by going fully open, and I urge you to
continue to use fully open codecs in preference to the RealNetworks ones.
It was entertaining to see the first sentence of the invitation that
RealNetworks sent to some of the press:
> On Monday at 10am in SF, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perrins, Brian Bellendorf
> etc. will all be attending a press conference with Real Networks and 30
> other top industry companies for a significant industry announcement.
I am flattered by their enthusiasm, especially since I'd told them
repeatedly that I'd not be making an endorsement. This shows that
RealNetworks may actually be able to deal with the Open Source community
on the community's own terms. That will be essential if a real partnership
is to come of today's announcement.
So, what is RealNetworks proposing? They plan to release code in 90
days. Some of the details of that code, including what parts are included
in the release and how they are licensed, may change before then.
RealNetworks "client engine", the thing that lives in the desktop or the
web browser and drives the client half of their codec, will be available
under a license that is derived from the Apple Public Source License, but
with goals much closer to the GNU General Public License. The license text
includes a patent grant. Like the APSL and the NPL licenses, it grants
RealNetworks a right to relicense your code under any license of their choice.
So it is unlike the GPL in that it gives one party more rights than all
others. This license has yet to be approved by the Open Source Initiative
board, or accepted by the Free Software Foundation, or even fully reviewed by
yours truly. It may have to be modified before it is worthy of acceptance by
the community.
The Open Source client engine will probably include:
> - RTSP/RTP/RTCP/SDP network playback
> - UDP support
> - Local file playback
> - Single source A/V
> - A/V data type interface
> - file format interface
> - some A/V codec support (TBD; standards-based, probably MP3 and 3GPP
> codecs)
I have an even longer list of other features that the Open Source client
_may_ include, which I can't show you until they decide. On the list of
functions that most likely won't be included, besides the codecs, there's
a lot of utility and user-interface code.
So, we're getting some network protocols that go on top of IP and UDP,
and do their best to provide continuous playback despite the fact that
the Internet doesn't guarantee throughput or latency. On top of that are
file formats and data objects, and other pieces necessary to make an Open
Source player for some already-open file formats. It is likely that many
of the client pieces will be applicable to servers and encoders as well,
although RealNetworks is not placing their server and "encoder engine"
in Open Source. Combining the Open Source player with RealNetworks
proprietary codecs will produce a player for the RealAudio and RealVideo
formats on new platforms where no player existed before.
Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of RealNetworks contribution could
be the Ogg Vorbis audio format. Ogg is a fully Open Source codec,
unencumbered by patents or royalty payment requirements, which
offers audio quality comparable to, or better then, its proprietary
competition. The Ogg encoder and servers, not just the client, are
available as Open Source. The addition of RealNetworks network protocols
and other utilities might make Ogg even better, and might facilitate the
inclusion of Ogg as an option in RealNetworks proprietary products.
RealNetworks server and "encoder engine", without the actual codecs,
will be under a "community source" license. This means that source code
will be disclosed to people who sign an agreement, and those people will
get a lot less than the full set of rights that come with Open Source
licensing. Since other streaming servers and encoders are already fully
Open Source, we can't expect the Open Source community to have much to
do with this part of RealNetworks code. However, community source does
make life easier for RealNetworks partners, whose business depends on
this code and who might not have had source code until now.
The RealAudio and RealVideo codecs will be available in compiled form, as
proprietary software that can be linked into a larger product. Again, no joy
in the Free Software camp. However, these codecs will be available for use
along with various Open Source pieces that Real is releasing, and thus it will
be easier to for third parties to produce a half-proprietary Real-format player
under Linux and on other operating systems where one is not supported today.
Why is Real doing this? Obviously, they are under pressure from
Microsoft's Media Player, and would like to prevent that product
from achieving market domination. Increasing open-ness is a weapon in
that battle, because a perception of open-ness will make more people
consider RealNetworks products as standards rather than just products.
But RealNetworks may not be able to afford to be open enough - their
revenue today depends on licensing fees for the use of their software, and
unless they can change their business model somewhat, it will be difficult
for them to achieve a real partnership with the Open Source community.
That community has little to gain by replacing Microsoft's proprietary
audio format with RealNetworks still-proprietary audio format. The Free
Software folks will continue to develop Ogg Vorbis and other solutions,
although perhaps in a way that is more compatible with RealNetworks
proprietary software. Thus, I consider todays announcement to be only a
first step for RealNetworks, with additional steps necessary if they are
to succeed. On behalf of the Open Source and Free Software developers, I
hope to be able to help RealNetworks take those additional steps.
Respectfully Submitted
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
They probably wouldn't think of using the GPL. RealNetworks is definitely not 'free'.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Here.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
The open source pieces will be released under the RealNetworks Public Source License (RPSL). We have posted the license on the Helix site at http://www.helixcommunity.org. We will be sending it to the OSI for certification shortly, and we're looking for feedback now.
----------
Mark Murphy, Helix Community Manager
CollabNet, Inc.
http://www.helixcommunity.org
Reg required, etc, but this NYT article, besides getting the scoop, is longer and better with details than CNN. Shocking, I know.
similar article posted at NY Times: http://nytimes.com/2002/07/22/technology/22REAL.ht ml
Comic Book Guy: "There is no Groening in my store."
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Reverse Engineering isn't illegal, the DMCA 'merely' (the quotes mean sarcasim) makes it illegal to distribute something which would 'circumvent an effective copyright control mechanisim.' Now, reverse engineering was probably involved in the production of that something, but the reverse engineering aspect of it is not itself illegal (well, atleast not as a result of the DMCA).
If the releasing of this code allows the circumvention of some stupid DRM thing in windows media player and associated formats, then MS might actually have a case with the DMCA. Which would put me actually agreeing with Real about something, which would be damned weird. I haven't used WMP in years though, so I have no idea if it actually implements any DRM things or not.Any one care to enlighten me on this?
So far, what Real has shown is marketing hype. There is no open source software until they give us the source. And as Bruce and others have pointed out, they're only open-sourcing Microsoft's codecs, not their own; this is not the spirit nor the letter of open-source!
IIRC the DMCA explicitly allows reverse-engineering for the purpose of interoperability. It only does not allow reverse-engineering when it is used to circumvent a security mechanism.
Mmmm.. Donuts
REALNETWORKS ANNOUNCES HELIX -- THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE, OPEN STANDARD FOR DIGITAL MEDIA DELIVERY
RealNetworks forms the Helix Community with support from HP, Intel, Nokia, Oracle, PalmSource, Sony Corporation, Sun Microsystems and more than 20 Other Companies and Organizations
read the complete announce
They aren't releasing any codecs. Streaming servers don't parse the underlying video data, they just (well, that's a misuse of the word "just" - it's hard to do right) turn the file into packets, and try to make sure that as many arrive to the client on time as possible.
For example, today's RealServer can stream QuickTime files, and they certainly don't have source to the Sorenson codecs.
My video compression blog
The license itself is here, if you are too lazy to look for it.
I just read through the license, and really I don't see anything that restrictive or unusual here. It seems to hold to the spirit of OSS; namely, that you can modify & release your modifications to your hearts content, and they can do the same. I don't see anything where they can release your modifications under a different license. Any release of modified code would fall under the license itself, which prohibits releasing non-open code. So, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks pretty legit.
O'Reilly has a piece up (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/07/2 2/OSCON_day1.html)that looks at "Why now?" and "What took you so long?" Rob Glaser and some Real engineers are coming to OSCON to make their case straight to OS developers.
...as their claim is that the BnetD developers actually *copied* portions of Blizzard's code rather than reverse engineering and rewriting it. They have dropped the DMCA component of the complaint, the latest (amended) version of which is here.
IANAL, but it seems that honest to goodness reverse engineering is still legally safe, for the time being.
:wq
"Under the Ubiquitous 'Value' Network strategy, Sony aims to create a secure (emphasis added), user-friendly environment where people can enjoy a wide variety of online digital media contents via various networked CE devices and PCs."
If Sony's definition of "secure" is what I think it is, then that means that they expect that this platform will contain DRM features to "protect" their content.
DRM is fundamentally incompatible with open source. If, as I am given to understand, the only thing closed-source about this release is Real's codecs, then there are no barriers to arbitrary saving, copying, and redistribution of downloaded streams. There will no longer be such a thing as a 'stream-only' Real feed; the software can be altered to not respect the appropriate bits. There is no security for the likes of Sony when consumers have control over their own computers - it flies in the face of their DRM strategy.
So what's up? Has Sony et al changed their mind about what defines "secure?" Has this consortium decided to give the content industries the cold shoulder? Or, if this is to contain some form of concession to the ??AAs, what technical shape will it take?
* "Thou shalt not circumvent thy neighbor's technological measure."
** "Thou shalt not manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in circumvention devices."
Do you read me, pooky?In 1997 I worked for VXtreme as a developer on the server end. At the time there was a nice little market contest going on between Real and VXTreme to send video over the Internet, and Microsoft had a stupid thing called Net Show they were pushing but it required too much bandwidth.
In the middle of 1997 I went into work one day, and we were all called, a company wide meeting, into the lunch room. A bunch of chairs for us as audience, and a row of chairs up front containing Microsoft people. They (M$oft) bought the company, and the software became Windows Media Player and the server component whose name I don't know.
Over the course of the purchase it was disclosed that at the same time as M$oft bought VXtreme, they also did deals with Real and a couple other video companies. The deal with Real was some kind of cross licensing, and over all the deal was to change the whole market from this little competition to M$oft owning it and all the other players being tools vendors supporting M$oft. Of course Real and M$oft later had a falling out.
My point is, that in 1997 Real and M$oft made a deal. I certainly don't know what was involved in that deal, and didn't care to look and find out more.
Real may be in trouble.
- David Herron
As another poster has pointed out, the Real Player License allows any contributor to retain exclusive rights to their contributions in section 11. The parent post is a Misinformation Troll; do not feed.
I'd like to thank Bruce for all of his help in distilling what we are offering. Bruce was in our press conference with his 802.11-equipped laptop helping to put out accurate information from a trusted source. We hope we can still win him over (as well as the rest of the community) when it comes to the value of our offering, which we think is quite substantial.
Additionally, I'd like to thank Eric Raymond and Brian Behlendorf for also being here today, and for their valuable feedback in making sure we're doing the Right Thing(tm). We've also discussed many aspects of this with Emmett Plant and Jack Moffitt of Xiph.org/Vorbis fame as well as Tim O'Reilly and the folks at O'Reilly & Associates, and we're very excited about the opportunities on that horizon. Last but not least, I'd like to thank CollabNet for their incredible help on the launch, and we're looking forward to working with Mark Murphy and the rest of the crew to make Helix into a success.
With regards to the business model, I feel I should respond. This is a very deliberately measured approach to joining the open source community. We have a responsibility to our shareholders to continue to make a profit over the long haul. In the short term, this means withholding some technology to continue forward without drastically altering our current business model.
In the long term, we will be thinking very deeply about how to resolve the business paradox of making money while giving stuff away. It's not new territory for us, but this is certainly a new application of that expertise. Bruce, Eric, Mark Donovan (@RealNetworks) and I had a very interesting conversation at lunch about this, and I'd like to continue this conversation with the them and the rest of the community at OSCON this week.
At any rate, we're very excited about this foray into what's a brave new world for our company. As with any company shifting away from a mosty proprietary software model, I imagine we'll have the occasional faux pas and hiccup. However, I'm incredibly excited about the step we've made, and
hopeful that we can have a fruitful partnership with the community (and if someone can come up with a non-nausiating word for "synergistic"...I'll use that too!)
Rob Lanphier
Program Manager -- Interoperability
RealNetworks
The streambox vcr client sent the "secret handshake" to a realmedia server, and realmedia sued over this because it was very easy to 'fake out' a streaming server in this way, and then ignore the 'don't save' bit.
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/rel ease10/Real.html