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.
what licence what licence what licence is it under !? If they've put it out under and unfree 'open source' licence, I'll ... not be happy :)
License, smishence. We need the code. Give us the code. If it's going open source, it's going to get rewritten.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
but instead re-created the technology based on data streams sent between the server and player software,
Dare I say it, however isn't this exactly what BnetD did with Battle.Net? Why can Real media get away with it but not BnetD? This makes no sense at all.
Maybe we will soon wittness an updated version of The Player War (I still hope for a new Browser War...). If M$ can find a hair in RN's soop, they will almost certainly pick it up and make a big deal out of it, either as patent infringement or as proof that they indeed do *not* have a monopoly. Either way, it's going to be ugly...
Good news is if the thing is waterproof and 100% Open Source... Maybe time to rejoice after all...
Excellence: Moderate (mostly affected by comments on your karma)
The article was light on details, but it sounds like RealNetworks was sniffing the data stream and reverse-engineering the Media Player protocol. I'm really hoping they did it the correct way, or Microsoft could literally sue them into oblivion.
AFAIK, you can reverse engineer the protocol correctly. What you need to do is have a programmer or team of programmers reverse engineer the stream and create a working replica. Once they've successfully created a Windows Media streaming program, they sit in a conference room with a team of "virgin" programmers who haven't seen the source or any data from the stream. The virgin coders then talk with the team that reverse engineered the stream, but don't actually see the source or the technical information. The virgin coding team then takes that data and creates a new software component.
I just really hope they took that vital step, otherwise RealNetworks is violating Microsoft's IP and will get sued off the face of the earth.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Step 1: Make a name for yourself in the market
;^)
Step 2: Microsoft steps in and begins to eat up your market with their desktop integration
Step 3: Struggle. Squirm.
Step 4: Release source to your application.
Granted, this might not be all of Real's assets in the way that Netscape released their browser source, but it could be the leg up that free software needs to get into the streaming and streaming client market. Also, it bears noting that Netscape (i.e. AOL/TW) invested tons of money to make the product work after they released the source. The Mozilla project certainly wouldn't be where it is today without that investment.
Now, how would it proceed?
Step 5: Company is marginalized, possibly dies.
Step 6: Free software product lives on.
We've already seen Nautilus from Eazel do this on the GNOME desktop (although some people seem to dislike the bloated desktop). It certainly is a possibility with Netscape, given the recent troubles at AOL/Time Warner. And I can't remember the time I read a positive article about Real, but then again, I might just be missing out.
Now, I guess I should read the CNN article...
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
So if they have the right to take any derivative code and relicense it as they see fit, does that mean that once someone makes a usable version of their client software (which they seem unable to do themselves) they will just take it away and return it to a closed-source license?
do not read this line twice.
Didn't Real put Streambox out of market because Streambox had reveng'ed the protocol to allow downloads of streaming media?!
Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but that would really smell of hypocrisy.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Of course, this is *assuming* that they did as you suggest and had isolated virgin programmers, which I hope they did for their sake (that said, I've seen companies do this on a couple of occassions for whatever legal reason).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I hate when something I hate does something I like.
Ditto. Though I'm not entirely sure that I'm going to like what Real is planning on doing.
I find Real's software (Jukebox, Realplayer) to be very annoying in that it registers itself in the [Windows] taskbar more persistently than another software I've seen and that it's also very persistent about ensuring that you register the product. Besides that, the display of the player is riddled with advertisements by default. And the new RealOne thing they have going on turned me away from the company for good, I think.
As with the sun's light
My mom was magnificent
Unquestionable
In April, RealMedia reached 17 million at-home viewers, compared with Windows Media at 15.1 million and Apple Computer's QuickTime at 7.3 million, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. At work, Windows Media drew about 12.2 million unique viewers, compared with RealMedia's 11.6 million and QuickTime's 5 million.
In 2001 Quicktime was downloaded about 80 million times. My personal website experience also contradicts Quicktime usage numbers as well. Huh? Are they counting porn in those numbers?
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
It's not a dictatorship if nobody has to do what they say - and they have no way of compelling anyone to do so. What FSF and OSI do is leadership. And you know that I am not always happy with the leadership that either organization exercises. Like FSF and OSI, I take the trouble to review companies approach to the community and tell people whether or not I find them acceptable. If I were totally in left field, nobody would listen. Same with FSF and OSI.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
thought [reverse-engineering a proprietary protocol] was no longer legal in [the United States]
1. Only if the protocol "effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". If you test the app using Charlie Chaplin movies or other pre-1923 content, you're not triggering the DMCA's circumvention ban (17 USC 1201).
2. The circumvention ban contains an exemption in 1201(f) for reverse engineering necessary to achieve interoperability. It's not my fault Judge Kaplan ignored this subsection; I consider it an incompetent error.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Microsoft did precisely the same thing to Novell's IPX/SPX protocol, developing a "clean room" implementation called NWLink. This protocol allowed for critical interoperability with Netware, and played a large role in companies' gradual migration to NT.
In other words, Microsoft wouldn't be where it is today without reverse engineering.
The sword cuts both ways, Billy.
"Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists."
Ugh... posting as AC cuz I can't find my password and Mozilla forgot my cookie.
Your main problem seems to be that Real isn't open-sourcing all of their codecs. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but:
- doesn't Real makes it's money off of it's encoder and serving software? If they were to release the source to the RealMedia encoder and serving software, wouldn't they be kissing their revenue stream goodbye? Really, is there any reason to believe that if the source to their codec were available, Microsoft and Apple wouldn't include working RealMedia codecs in their own software as quickly as possible?
- isn't it highly likely that, besides their own codec, the codecs for other formats that the player can recognize may be licensed software, for which they do not have the right the open the source?
Fair enough. What then when the security mechanism is there to protect against reverse engineering?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
I saw no mention of open sourcing the player, or even mention of anything that would necessarily do encoding... It seems the portion being open sourced would be transport and delivery, and even the license to that would be restrictive.
This is a move to appeal to providers starting to go on the fence regarding Windows Media, not to end-users. This will offer the most tweakable solution to vendors and potentially a way to make the most efficient server in town, without opening the realmedia format. They know full well the minute they do that alternative players will pop up that don't show ads, that don't 'call home' to real, and offer an easy to use interface that is easier to get at than real will allow its player to be, and their player software will fall by the wayside.
Without the ads/private information provided by their player, their business model would fall apart and they know it. They've been thus far relying on being encumbant to power their usage, and in the face of the Microsoft behemoth, that is going away.
They are perfectly willing to sacrifice ad revenue and excessive personal info collection for their linux player for the sake of claiming to be more cross-platform (even their developing RealOne player doesn't do ads and doesn't even offer the 'gold pass' option). If they were sure that the information would only be used for linux and other 'fringe system' decoding, they would gladly open up their format. They don't seem to like developing their non-windows versions as they take forever to do so, and that would mean they no longer had to worry. Mplayer has had some success with their binary codecs, and I doubt they could care. The current linux user base would provide more bad than useful data anyway in their forms and not tend to be influenced by Real's marketing. Linux is just a nice platform to say 'look, look, does Windows media or quicktime work natively with linux? we must be better, we are cross-platform!"
But the second ZoomPlayer had realmedia support, Real could kiss RealOne's popularity goodbye, and then next stop, chapter 11....
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Once the source code for the new real player is available, someone is sure to strip out the crap, and make a spyware free version of it that doesn't bog your computer down. Until then, real player will continue to suck.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
I really don't know why anyone didn't mention this before, but MPlayer is now able to link to the Real libraries and play Real formats. Those are closed codecs; but Helix looks like it'll be closed as well - so where's the advantage to using a Real sponsored player, when MPlayer uses all the same closed-source libraries, and the base system is GPL'd? If you contribute to MPlayer (which also plays ASF) then Real can't snag your work like they can with Helix...
So the article is incorrect.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I may be very ill informed here, but does Real even have the right to open source their audio and video?
atrc is licensed from Sony and RV9 (VP4) is licensed from On2, AFAIK.
Real's "crown jewles" are not their's to open source, AFAIK.
Am I right/wrong? Am I far off/close? Horribly uninformed?