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.
when something I hate does something I like.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ok, so they supposedly reverse engineered the MS protocol, then? It surely sounds like they did. The article says they are offering the client source immediately, and then the server source in a few months. Maybe they're waiting to deal with MS first.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
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";
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
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
Here.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
The article compares Microsoft's battle with Real to their past battle with Netscape. It is an intersting comparison since both battles I believe were a combination of Microsoft's maneuvering and the other companies failure to put out an adequate product. Real has consistently put out bloated, resource-hogging, spywaring, bug-ridden software.
RealOne is a huge improvement over previous products but you still have to be careful with it re-associating itself with certain file types. I think what has helped Real, though, is the fact the Windows Media Player really peaked at 6.4 and has itself become bloated.
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
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
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
I'm not American, so my details on this would be hazy. But this is reverse engineering. And you're in trouble of the DMCA kind when you perform such an operation, I've observed.
Am I correct?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
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.
they release Microsoft's codec and don't release their own codec. We should not become a tool in the wars between these behemoths. That is a road to mediocrity.
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.
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!
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
this is not a flame, i just want to know the logic behind your decision.
I want 2D games back.
Sorta like DVD players. Apex probably broke their contract, but mplayer/xine/etc didn't break anything.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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?
I often wonder why format creators don't always do this (i.e. release specs for format into public domain, while maintaining control over servers/encoders).
If I create/sell tools for a format, and give the players away for free anyway, I want as many people to use the format as possible. If the format becomes standard, I'm in a great position since I control the content creation side (i.e. where the $$$ is).
So people creating open source players/viewers doesn't hurt me, it helps me enormously, since I don't have to expend resources maintaining all possible platforms.
Doug
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
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."
As far as I can see, the DMCA is unlikely to apply here since plain (non-DRM'd) ASF streams do not contain any form of copy protection.
If I remember correctly, though, Microsoft has a patent on the ASF format scheme itself. The granting of this patent in the first place was ridiculous - (thought sadly commonplace these days) - ASF is a very simple format for multiplexing video/audio/whatever over a single stream. There's nothing innovative about it.
Of course plenty of patents are issued these days for very unimaginative, uninnovative things - what makes MS's patent so unusual is that it's tantamount to patenting a file format - something that could effectively prevent otherwise legal reverse-engineering.
The author of Virtual Dub was forced to remove ASF compatibility after pressure from Microsoft regarding the patent.
Microsoft - boldly leading us back into the dark ages of incompatibility!
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
One of the major reasons streaming media is used today is not for live productions, but rather, as a misguided and ill-conceived form of copy-protection and content-control. If Real goes open, and that creates a perception that Real is easier to copy, will the media cartel (RIAA, MPAA, etc.) drop Real entirely, in favor of Windows Media or some other more suitably evil technology?
In other words, could this make the Open Source streaming media situation worse, at least in the short-term?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The smartest thing that M$ could do is just let Real do it. Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols (after all they have made it clear through their actions that they believe it is perfectly acceptable to reverse-engineer a protocol based on a data stream) give this new version a nice interface with less advertizing clutter and make it available as minor free update available as part of a service patch. Not that we have never seen this done before, right? Do these companies ever learn?
Well, I suppose we'll have to see the license they use. Hopefully it will mean someone can strip out all the real networks garbage that spawns all over my machine when I install (or even use real player). Theoretically, Microsoft could even take their code and use it to support RM in media player. I have no idea why Real thinks people would want to watch WM stuff in real player, or anything at all in real player.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
And if CmdrTaco goes back and fixes the "to"'s in the dept, it'll also be too little too late.
You can't copyright a protocol; if they use Microsoft patents then there might be some problems, even if they did a 'clean room' implementation.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
The site talks about open-sourcing the Helix server, as well as the encoder. While the server isn't too much of a surprise, given the success of the Quicktime one, what is the encoder going to be?
You said that it won't be the Real format, which is fine, but what formats will it encode for? Windows Media? MPEG? Or is it more just a pluggable framework for codecs?
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
You don't actually have to do a 'clean room' reverse engineering unless you are probably going to end up with lots of bit-for-bit stuff that looks like it was copied. In the case of Compaq and the IBM bios, you didn't have much space, and you weren't really doing much, so there was a really good chance that lots of the data would be exactly the same if it was going to work. If Compaq didn't use a clean room IBM could sue for copyright violation because the data would be the same.
Most of the time you don't need a clean room.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
...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?
Well, that's the reason my company is bailing out of Real's products and going windows media (well, the 2nd reason I suppose):
1. Real's server license costs and arm and a leg. Thousands of dollars a year. Windows Media server can be installed (for now) for free on MS Server operating systems.
2. Real's player is an absolute pain in the ass to set up. Have to dodge around dozens of registration pages, email address requests, deselecting "additional bonus spam", etc. Then you get bombarded with advertising, and disabled features.
Windows media - just doubleclick on the link on MS's web site, and it's installed. Done.
Real REALLY dropped the ball on streaming media - they used to have a near monopoly on it, but the additional crap they shoveled on us made it useless.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
"What thou shalt not, I shalt did!" -Bart Simpson
During the Q&A session of the webcast:
Perens: I've been reading questions off of slashdot, most of which have been positive.
Glaser: Are you sure you have the right URL?
(Score:-1, Wrong)
* "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?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.
Sounds like all that is necessary is an example of time-division multiplexing. Perhaps they could get somebody from AT&T who was doing this in the 60s.
If I remember correctly, though, Microsoft has a patent on the ASF format scheme itself. The granting of this patent in the first place was ridiculous - (thought sadly commonplace these days) - ASF is a very simple format for multiplexing video/audio/whatever over a single stream. There's nothing innovative about it.
Very true, Microsoft owns this and numerous other rediculous patents, and, to be fair, plenty of other companies own software patents of varying stupidity as well.
But this only matters to the United States, which seems to be doing all it can to make itself the technological backwater of the world, hamstringing itself with software (and business-method) patents, criminalizing reverse-engineering (DMCA), and now attempting to criminalize general computing itself through government mandated DRM (SSSCA/CBDTPA/BPDG) [the latter of which may happen through the back-door via the FCC, with no new legislation debated or passed, if Senator "Disney" Hollings has his way].
Once this source has been released (assuming it has been released under a free license) it will be in the wild, so to speak, and remain free in the rest of the world even if those of us unfortunate enough to be living under the American Regime are not permitted to use it.
Either way, releasing this under a free license would be a good thing. It remains to be seen, however, just how free Real's license turns out to be.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols
Thats why Raal should GPL the source; that scenario would not be possible without M$ being forced to free the source to Mafia Player, which they will never do.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
mplayer can play any of M$'s codecs and file formats (though not transport) and recently has support for Real's codecs in CVS.
I really don't know why anyone didn't mention this before, but MPlayer is now able to link to the Real libraries and play Real formats. Those are closed codecs; but Helix looks like it'll be closed as well - so where's the advantage to using a Real sponsored player, when MPlayer uses all the same closed-source libraries, and the base system is GPL'd? If you contribute to MPlayer (which also plays ASF) then Real can't snag your work like they can with Helix...
So does this mean I can actually listen to streamed RA content without installing spyware?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I have to apologize, but I've seen this misspelling so many times on /. that it's just about driving me up a friggin' wall!
On top of that, it seems to be spreading across /. like some sort of weird "enfection"!
Don't ask me why this bugs me so... I can't explain it. Other gammar and spelling mistakes don't faze me. This one, on the other hand, is the visual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard, or biting down on tinfoil, or... yet get the idea.From the online Mirriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:
Main Entry: ridiculousPronunciation: r&-'di-ky&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ridiculosus (from ridiculum jest, from neuter of ridiculus) or ridiculus, literally, laughable, from ridEre to laugh
Date: 1550
synonym see LAUGHABLE
- ridiculously adverb
- ridiculousness noun
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Thats why Raal should GPL the source; that scenario would not be possible without M$ being forced to free the source to Mafia Player, which they will never do.
Um, no.
Perhaps you didn't read all the bits about reverse-engineering-from-data-streams. So what if the code that originally produces the data streams is GPL'd? The GPL won't matter if the new code isn't based on the GPL code, even if both sets of code do the exact same thing. Or are you a fan of AT&T's failed "brain-tainting" argument?
Pieces? "Aye, now there's the rub"
Looking at the server page, it's hardly ready to go. Note the open server page mentions nothing about streaming Windows media, QuickTime, MPEG2 or 4, simply Real. All it seems to support is RTSP/RTP/RTCP/SDP. No MMS support? Well that's kind of useless then, as it the lack of HTTP streaming support.
Believe me I'd love to have a central streaming system, my business is all based on streaming, but forgive me for not expecting much from a company that releases what has to be the worse media player, which drops advertising icons on your desktop and hides it's advertising engine by calling it evntsvc.exe, and which drops the start up code back into the registry each time you remove it.
Some people have claimed that, like the MPL, the RPSL give Real Networks the right to use your code created under that license commercially. This is not true.
Specifically, if we read section 4 of their license, we see that: Further, we see that Real Networks does not really expect to get anything of value to themselves from the efforts of Open Source programmers; specifically, in section 11, we see: The specific effect of the combination of these sections is that they seem to believe that they will not get anything commercially useful from the Open Source community that they are attempting to create, since they are not requiring the ability to commercially distribute the code under terms other than the license... which is not applicable to their commercially distributed code.
-- Terry
...Linux wouldn't be suitable as a server or client in nearly as many situations as it is today. Believe it or not, lots of people still do use SMB, and support for it on Linux makes it possible to use it in such an environment.
Much in the same way as support for Novell networking made Windows a more suitable client and server in many environments.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If it is in effect nothing more than patenting a file format, that sounds like it could be fairly easily challenged in court if someone had the money and time to do so. Patenting a file format is just the computer equivalent of patenting a particular layout of an encyclopedia -- it's one particular scheme for arranging information.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
From what I understannd, Real are going to release some of the source code for their new player (excluding the codecs).
The original poster said that M$ could use this source code in Mafia Player, without having to return any code to the public (under the proposed licence, which is not the GPL).
This has nothing to do with reverse engineering of streams, but rather the source for the new player which anyone can incorporate into other software, without the rest of the source for the new product being subject to release.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Just off that page they have a whitepaper on their server performance. Not surprisingly, they claim to beat WM by 125% on NT2K.
However, they also claim that RM/Redhat 7.3 beats WM/NT2K on the same hardware by 340%, *twice* as fast as WM/NT on the same hardware!
Actually it is quite possible for a cult to be accidental. That is, an organisation of people develops cult-esque behaviour without the intent of doing so.
Any group with the intention of 'converting' new people over to join them has that danger. Of course, it is very difficult to detect intent in such situations.
According to meme theory it really doesn't matter if a cult is constructed and/or operated by people with a conscious intent to defraud or true believers who are working from the highest of motives. What matters is whether the system of ideas converts those holding them into machines to propagate itself into the minds of others.
It's just like creating an operating system that is robust against crashing: For this purpose it doesn't matter if a bug that allows a crash is exercised accidentally by an application program bug or deliberately by a malicious user - it still crashes the system, and if the bug is present it will eventually be activated. The only difference between the buggy app and the malicious user is that the malicious user MIGHT trigger the OS bug earlier.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ah, I am indeed, my apologies. It's been a long day here. However, in my case, it doesn't help. None of my clients use quicktime for delivery to end users. They all want Windows and MMS. Without MMS, the "open" Real is simply a replacement for the horribly expensive Real Server. Of course, without real's full range of codecs, even that function is severly limited.
Is stealing bread wrong when you have none ?
;-)
Is stealing codecs wrong when you have none ?
Into todays world codecs are like bread, within
now and ten years tv will be dead, everyone will
use internet streams and if we dont watch out we
will have to pay M$ even to watch the News,
which is telling you to hide in a Bunker,
cause the Media War just broke out, but you will
never know cause you think stealing is WRONG!
Stealing is wrong if it hurts real life people,
like stealing the bread of someone who is nearly
dieing from hunger. I like Robin Hood
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
So the article is incorrect.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
The original poster didn't say that, reread it. What he is saying is that Real can't exactly reverse engineer Microsoft's protocols, release a product that uses those protocols (whether its OSS or not is irrelevant) and then bitch and moan if Microsoft does the same thing to them. By releasing a product that includes reverse engineered WMV/WMA support, Real is giving Microsoft a license to do the same with the .RM/.RAM formats. If Real were to try to sue MS in this case it would look pretty dumb and also be thrown out of court really quickly.
IIRC, the author of VirtualDub figured out the structure of ASF, added support to his program (in version 1.2 or so) and was asked by Microsoft to remove it, which he did (so he wouldn't get any legal problems). And he wasn't even trying to access the compressed audio / video data itself directly, because he did that comfortably via the API, just the wrapper file format around it.
If you set everything up right, RM can be as good or even better than DivX with a smaller filesize.
Username taken, please choose another one.
The question is, why on earth would Microsoft be opposed to this? It expands their empire by letting non-Windows users take advantage of the WMP standard, and on top of that someone else did all the hard work for them.
If MS were serious about promoting their technologies as standards, they would be glad to see them ported to other platforms. If anything, setting WMP loose on unix platforms may help bury Real Media.
I just don't get it, but then lawyers work in mysterious ways.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
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
What if it's easier, cheaper to stream (Server) under Linux + Real Server. Many companies will inmediatelly adopt it.
If many sources use it (and it will be in their own best interest, after all MS is the player that can take the MOST bucks from companies pockets, and so it's always the worst choice (if OSS erans critical mass)) then it will "just work".
And Real will make a short term profit and maybe a larger profit in the future. A decent, honest profit I mean.
The alternative is:
1) Lose market share
2) Lose sales
3) Lose capital
4) No investment
5) goto 1 (5 iterations)
6) file for Chapter 11 and sell IP rights for a few bucks
OSS is the price to pay if you are not in love with the Monopoly. And even then, when the Monopoly doesn't need you anymore, you are toasted ("extend").
unfinished: (adj.)
Personally, my focus isn't nearly so much a client-usage issue as it is a server issue. Right now, the only reason we have any MS boxes on our production network is for windows media streaming.
If I could replace those WM boxes running w2k (which still need frequent rebooting despite the best efforts of what are presumably skilled MS tinkerers) with a couple sturdy linux boxes capable of handling more clients, and more pliable to my security requirements, it's an all ways around win for myself on an headache level, and for the company on a maintenance level.
Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong here, the helix server has reverse-engineered and therefore emulates the WM media streams... which means that the WMP should be able to play those streams anyways.
So, all current clients supported, new realmedia 9 format supported, single point for ease of maintenance, future open sourcing (in whole or in part) and I get to yank out the last remnants of microsoft from my network.
I'm personally having a hard time seeing how this is going to be a negative, unless the helix server is terribly insecure (which I'll mitigate by chrooting et al if possible), doesn't work as advertised or gets yanked by future lawsuitage.
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
OK. Lets do it this way.
... ALL of Real's protocols" NOT "reverse engineers ALL of Real's protocols".
The smartest thing that M$ could do is just let Real do it. Then all M$ has to do is to create a version of Media Player that includes ALL of Real's protocols
M$ will do this by incorporating the Helix source code into the Mafia Player codebase. The post says "includes
If the Helix source is released under the GPL, then the source for that new, derivative player must be released. Real have chosen a licence that does not make this happen.
If Real want to PREVENT the scenario that the poster has laid out, all they have to do is GPL the source of the Helix based player.
This has nothing to do with M$ separately reverse engineering the protocols belonging to Real, which, AFAIK will be actionable.
give this new version a nice interface with less advertizing clutter and make it available as minor free update available as part of a service patch. Not that we have never seen this done before, right? Do these companies ever learn?
Indeed, will they ever learn? Real have a huge amount of momentum behind their player. The majority of the world doesnt care if the source if GPL or not, they just want an app that works.
If Real think for a second that their player is under attack in the same way that Netscapes browser was under attack, they need to go GPL now, because MS will not touch it if they do.
M$ will not be able to go into court to and refuse to obey the GPL when they spend hundreds of millions ensuring that everyone obeys the licences that their own software is released under.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Apple's license is OSI Certified, and is quite close to being "Free Software" as defined by the FSF with the only "flaw" according to the FSF being "any modified version "deployed" in an organization must be published". I don't really understand why so many seem to be bothered by the APSL.
Please consider also the opinion of Richard Stallman and the FSF. While most on this site are quick to dismiss Stallman as an idealist, his opinion still carries quite a bit of weight. For maximum success in the community, shoot for satisfying both the OSI definition of Open Source and the FSF definition of free software.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.