Slashdot Mirror
Windows Media for Embedded Linux Systems
ntmonkey writes "According to this article, Microsoft has authorized InterVideo to port Windows Media Player to Linux. However, WMP will not be available to normal folks...Microsoft will only allow it to be distributed via set top boxes and the like."
Or is it really fourth?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The Microsoft and Linux icons on the same topic... what an unholy combination! I thought I'd never see the day.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Comment removed based on user account deletion
windows media player? WHY??
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/225206
This seems to be more for their XBox line of products and not for the john doe linux user IMHO.
Don't most people go with linux to get away from m$?
... until it gets ripped off a box and distributed for general use?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"If you register the player online, which involves answering some very personal questions and effectively allowing Microsoft a good look at your PC, then you get the full version. Otherwise you're left with a cut down version.
"If they applied this tactic to Linux users, imagine the information they could get their hands on."
Indeed.
Even if they ported it, would you use it with those stipulations?
One word. MPlayer.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/225206 &
so now will the movie theaters run linux?
Hey...it was highly rated in a previous story. If the Slashdot gang can repeat stories...why can't I repeat comments.
How long until someone gets this for everyone else in linux? I suggest a contest -- the winner gets more porn!
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I don't all the legal issues with GNU, but if they use any part of the GNU libraries etc, wouldn't they have to open source the media player? Including how to read the file format?
oh forget about it.
It's called mplayer.
On a more serious note, Micro$oft has released NetShow for Linux, which is very old and unusable.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
"I would be a lot more intrested in having QT ported to linux."
say what?
Seems MS is abandoning hope of ruling to embedded space as is evident by them openning the source to WinCE.
Why would Microsoft do something like this if they are so dead set against other operating systems? Why, they wish to become the new video disc media format duh. I mean a new standard is going to come out of the blue laser crap anyway Microsoft might as well try to become the coedec of it. =].
Even if M$ do go through with this how long before someone will hack the STB and post it on the web somewhere? Then again we could just all use mplayer :)
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
The deal includes Windows Media codecs, file formats, streaming protocol and DRM -- everything that is needed to access Windows Media. However, the Windows Media Player itself will not be ported.
AC
Yes, mplayer has got to be one of the most successfull media players available for Linux. Although, in the typical Linux fasion, it is not easy to get setup correctly, once it is configured for use with Nautilus it is the best movie player around. I have found only a very slim few formats that don't work, and it is fast, too. Mplayer is one open source application with dependencies on closed source librarys that I do keep on my system and use regularly.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
You would think a site seemingly devoted to open source and Linux would concentrate more of their attention to that, but no.
It's all microsoft, all the time!!
And with all the hatred and venom spewing normally reserved for rapists and murderers.
This childishness and immaturity is what's hindering Linux for now and the near future.
Microsoft is right. Most Linux folks are not normal.
Chris
Microsoft continues to extend its world lead and is being nice to Linux :-)
Stick Men
Having it closed sort of sucks because other competing players can't use the codecs. I think MS is just trying to make WMP9 video formats the defacto industry standard.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
This may not be a dupe as it clarifies that Microsoft is not going to allow the port of WMP to be used in regular linux boxes, so all of the discussions about GPL licensing are mute!
Way to go Microsoft! You never let us down in our expectations of your imperialist powers
This is just sig!
What exactly have you been smoking?
Yarrrrr matey! We be the pirates o' the seven operatin' systems!
*wink-wink* *nudge-nudge*
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
I guess it looks like MS-windows will never be able to take a foothold in embeded deviceses the way linux has.
Microsoft is making software to run on linux, Am I still sleeping?
-makoffee
Sure, I knew you could.
No the Windows Media 9 codecs are licensable piecemeal - you can just license the codec just like you license DVD or MPEG4.
This is allowing InterVideo to make WMP9 players/encoders/DRM/whatever piecemeal part you purchase into software you can put on embedded devices.
InterVideo also makes DVD players for embedded linux - if you're making a set top box you'd use this stuff.
Sounds like a prime candidate for a legal paradox that could destroy time itself!
Z. http://www.play.net Your games, my job. C'est la vie!
If Microsoft distributes a set-top box that includes the Linux kernel, then the product as a whole is derived from the Linux kernel. To get permission to distribute the Linux kernel, they must agree to the GNU General Public License, which requires them to distribute the source of all the software they add to the Linux kernel in order to make their product. This doesn't sound like something Microsoft would be willing to do. Am I missing something?
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
No, not about the fact that this is a dupe. That's par for the course nowadays...
I mean, is anyone surprised that Intervideo's only doing this for set-top boxes and the like? I mean, hell... their LinDVD software is STILL only available for embedded and OEM systems. Regular users can't buy it. Why should we expect anything less for Windows Media?
Also keep in mind that the CEO of Intervideo said a few years back that those of us using software like DeCSS to watch DVD's on our Linux boxes were pirates or some such. Then, when he could turn around and SELL a "legitimate" platform for us, he chose to keep it away from the Linux using public at large. *grumble* I don't see why we should support them if they're going to treat us like red-headed stepchildren.
(Sorry, I don't have a link to the article where the CEO said that... couldn't find it via Google. I'm sure I can't be the only one who's seen it...)
Who is ordinary folk? You mean the person who bought set top box is extraordinary?
I repeat : It is not a crime to earn money with software, YET.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
for unemployed slashdot janitors?
What, like Taco?
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Rofl...man, this was fun! ;-)
Would title his message "Indeed."
Aside from the standard ./configure; make; make install, what makes MPlayer so friggin' hard to configure? You DON'T really have to tweak it. It's about as brainless as anything gets. I just don't understand this issue.
It plays tons of formats out of the box (even on PPC!). Download the extra libraries, and it plays damn near everything.
It's the (unix) wonder app of the millenium, imo.
Unless I can watch porn in a *.avi format on my Red Hat box, I don't care.
-Dipster
If they use i386, I can count it in minutes. :)
If they use something else, could be a LOOOOOONG time.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Yes you are missing a great deal. The GPL only restricts the code that is covered by the GPL. So if Microsoft chose to take the linux kernel and rerelease it, then they would have to release the source, otherwise they don't have to release anything under the GPL simply because they are using Linux as their kernel. Take, for example, Oracle, win4lin, Opera, and a host of other BSD licensed material that runs on linux.
This is just sig!
It isn't *that though* to install. You just need to understand the type of video card that you are using. The MPlayer documentation is very intimidating for most people, so that's what makes it difficult (their own ability to process the documentation). But frankly, XV video and OSS/SDL audio will work on the majority of systems out there... Just pop the codecs into /usr/lib/win32 and do a standard compile with the gui option if necessary.
But what Nautilus app are you using? Lumiere? I heard that there was a Nautilus app out there, but this is the only one that I have found, and the home page has been down.
I would be a lot more intrested in having QT ported to linux.
As if qt (KDE libs) were not already ported to Linux.... ='
It'd be nice to see qt ported and merged with Microsoft Windows CE code though, in order to see true speed/stability differences (except that MS would then maybe be allowed to use that code without regard to GPL licenses(?)... Didn't read that paragraph from that article...)
Sorry, it seems gonorrhea requires sexual contact. RSI is likely, though.
well there is about 10 people who posted that before him
Lately I have found that the majority of /. stories are delayed mirrors of Google News Sci/Tech section. I generally check Google News for the stories, then come here about 2 hours later to see the dialog about the story. I knew this story would be making its way here sooner or later.
Even assuming they don't change the kernel, if they are distributing it within the box they need to agree to the GPL, which requires that they distribute the source of the kernel, at least. I argue that even though they add only applications and libraries, since they are distributing a complete, integrated package that includes the Linux kernel, the package as a whole is derived from the Linux kernel and thus must include source. It would be different if they were distributing only their applications and libraries, with the end-user responsible for acquiring and installing the Linux kernel.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
This is potentially big news for TiVo. With the recent release of Home Media Option, there have been some complaints about the software not supporting WMA. My music is in mp3 format, so I don't really care, but if it can help increase interest and development in Home Media Option, I'm all for it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You do, if you want to play any WMP protected content, such as the second session's WMF files on a copy-protected CD. Of course, if you really want to listen to Kenny G that badly, please, by all means, be my guest!
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
It Doesn't Work That Way<super>TM</super>
The only thing that gets two programs considered as the same work is being linked (statically or dynamically). That is, unless they are distributing WMP as a loadable kernel module, they don't have to ever worry about source. And even then, there's an exception in the Linux kernel license to allow loadable binary modules (even if there wasn't, they could use the Nvidia style of redirection -- load an open module that loads a closed module).
The GPL covers specific works. It does not cover a bunch of works as a whole.
+H3 d4y hA$ FiN4LLy C0ME. mICroS0ph+ H4$ @Ckn0wLEdGeD TEh eX1$tENC3 0f liNuX BY a11OW1N6 ON3 0f 1T5 0wNZ @PPL1c4+i0N5 2 B3 p0r+3D 0VeR +0 +he R1V4L op3r4t1nG $y5tEM.
Sorry, but you don't know a shit. Why don't you read the GPL first, before posting such nonsense here?
...you don't think anyone will do an illegal port, do you? Frankly I think this is a hail mary pass by Redmond to make Windows Media more popular. They can't say that is what they are doing, but if they release codecs for Linux, that will be the result.
Ross Winn "not just another ugly face..."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As opposed to double-clicking setup.exe
You people are worthless pathetic losers.
In a set-top box I expect everything to be linked together into a single application. I do not expect to have an interface which lets me write programs or obtain applications from an external source.
Nvidia does not distribute their software bundled with the Linux kernel. Because the end-user is responsible for obtaining and installing the Linux kernel, Nvidia does not need to agree to the GPL.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
This is only for embedded devices. You will not see Windows Media Player for the version of Linux which runs on ordinary computers. Microsoft does not have a monopoly in embedded devices, and probably never will: Linux is beating Microsoft in that market. Therefore, if Microsoft wants its media player to exist in that market, they have to (gasp!) compete by doing drastic things like offering it on other operating systems!
This isn't the first time. Microsoft offers its technologies on other platforms when they don't have a monopoly. FrontPage server extensions have been available for Apache for quite some time, for example.
When you see Windows Media Player downloadable for x86 Linux with the X Window System -- then it's news.
However, it's important to avoid using Windows Media anywhere it is found. This is an area Microsoft wants a monopoly in, and it would be a very bad thing if they achieved it. Choose MPEG, OGG, Real, etc. streams when you can find them -- b**ch and moan to webmasters when you can't find them.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Oh, please. Stop being a fool. You obviously don't understand GPL or the Linux kernel, so quit trying to pretend that you do.
They don't need to *include* the kernel. It merely has to be freely accessable, for instance, on an FTP site.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/225206
Does it matter? MS has been using open-source code for...umm...ever. Remember when zlib had security problems and needed to be updated?
MS put out the same notice for some of their stuff also...
The great thing about closed source is, nobody has to know that there is some open-source in there
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
"You see? Our WMP on Linux Embedded Devices is 33% slower than on Windows CE!" "Uh... what? We're causing to be slower on purpose? No habla ingles?"
Karma whorin' since 1999
say what?
It appears you're confusing QT with Qt. QT, or QuickTime, is Apple's multimedia platform for Mac OS and Windows. Qt, on the other hand, is a copylefted GUI toolkit for X11 and a proprietary GUI toolkit for Windows, Mac OS, and X11. A native port of the free version of Qt to Windows will not be released until ReactOS is done; a native port of the free version of Qt to Mac OS X will not be released until GNUstep is done.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Wonder app of the millenium?
Are you kidding?
It's a second rate player for a second rate OS. It plays first rate video at third rate speeds. QT on Apple and WMP on Windows outperform it hands down (as they should). It's a nice toy for people pushing Unix on the desktop, but it's not even in the running for 'wonder app of the millenium'.
Video for Online Dating Profiles
The version of mplayer that's lawful to distribute in the United States cannot play files with digital restrictions management encoding.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Of course you won't. It will only be availible for the embedded market, not for people who run Linux on things that Microsoft believe should be running Windows XP.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Thats easy to fix, just rip with EAC (exact audio copy) and have it build its own TOC. ...wait... EAC is only available on Windows. We should really be trying to port THAT!
Jeremy
I can write and distribute an application which runs on Linux without licensing it under the GPL, but that does not describe the situation of a set-top box. In a set-top box, there is a single application. If that application is derived from the Linux kernel, it can be distributed only under the terms of the GPL.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Wouldn't Microsoft want to release an end-user version for Linux for the exact same reason they ported it to Mac OS (and then again to OS X)?
And, um, by the way, does anyone know what that reason would that be?
Up with Hugs!
alternatively, FUCK YOU!
I wonder if move indicates that Microsoft doesn't expect either XP Media Center Edition (or WebTV) to monopolize set top boxes.
> Aside from the standard ./configure; make; make install,
./configure the MPlayer source. Other codecs can be copied any time. But to where? The standard documentation isn't always clear about locations.
./configure, but I'm sure that I did it right. Of course, for each user, I have to manually link the font to ~/.mplayer/font or explicitly tell mplayer where to look. Most programs know which directories store their default data files.
./configure parameters you use, you have to double check which files are manually loaded to which locations (why can't make install just automagically put the relevant codecs/skins/fonts to /usr/local/share/* or /usr/local/lib/* or something like that?) and you have to be anally attentive to which drivers you need, a requirement that we don't really see for any other media player for any platform.
> what makes MPlayer so friggin' hard to configure?
> You DON'T really have to tweak it. It's about as brainless
> as anything gets. I just don't understand this issue.
Well, I did have to separately install lame and perhaps a couple other prerequisites, but I'm used to that with POSIX installs.
The different codecs require different methods of installation. ogg/vorbis stuff have to be installed (libogg, libvorbis) before MPlayer is installed. Windows codecs have to be copied to a directory before you run make. It doesn't say that Quicktime codecs have to be predownloaded, but you have to use a special flag when you
The Win32 Lite codec pack is just a subset of the Win32 pack, so I don't need both, right? Hmmm. Okay. The QuickTime DLL pack goes into the win32 codec directory, but do the QuickTime Extras go into the same place? The documentation doesn't seem to acknowledge those.
Should I point out that I have a RADEON 8500, but -vo vidix doesn't seem to work with it, despite what the docs say? Luckily, the default settings work, but if I try to set the driver in the preferences of gmplayer, nothing will work, and the only way of fixing it is to delete the conf file.
It'd be nice if the system made fonts a bit easier. Usually, you don't have to copy fonts into various directories to get a program to work properly, even in linux. So it gives a link to fonts, but there are four packs there. Which should I use? I don't know. I randomly picked one, and I think it worked. I have an OSD, though I can't get subtitles to work. I think that there was a parameter for that in
MPlayer doesn't work with TV input on my computer, but I think that's ATI's fault for crappy V4L support.
The problem isn't that this stuff is impossible. I mean, I got MPlayer installed with almost all features activated. I have no idea if it's at all decently optimized for my video or sound, but it plays virtually everything and it really nice interface-wise. But "as brainless as anything gets" is not applicable to the MPlayer install. If you want it installed properly and fully, you have to be prepared to read through a *lot* of documentation, you have to be careful about which
But it does rock, and is one of the best applications ever made.
-JC
Anyone remember the good old days of 'Innocent until proven guilty'?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Only dedicated devices powered by Linux?
I'm so VERY disppointed... NOT.
MPlayer would be better for such manufacturers to look into. Sure, it may use those codecs, but the interface is all OSS and that's good. Furthermore, using a ported Windows app wouldn't alleviate those pesky codec licensing problems anyway. So really, there's no advantage to using MS's MPlayer in your Linux device at all... unless there's something technical I'm unaware of. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Isn't this a violation of anti-trust. They aren't allowing distribution of one product (a media player) to other markets because it potentially hurts their other product (windows.) At this point its no longer a point of it not being economically viable - they have the port - you just can't use it with competition.
You know what? If a company makes a product that is good... makes it affordable... makes it friendly and non-restrictive as possible... and makes licensing/support/etc sane.
Why the hell not use it? The only thing I would find makes WMP scary to me is the bloat, and the DRM. If it comes to open source, then DRM can be dealt with, bloat possibly trimmed.
Just because it is MS, doesn't make it bad. They're a big company, but linux et al are growing too, so I'd rather they learn some lessons and reform - keep the good ideas and dump the bad - than go down the toilet entirely.
We can already play Windows Media files on Linux. You just have to install either MPlayer or Xine as well as the Windows DLLs, easily available from the MPlayer website. I think that Microsoft's kind of behind the curve here.
No, this isn't a troll, nor a fake. Follow this link to download NetShow (a precursor to the net-aware media player) for Linux. Yes, it's a beta, and yes, it's a long-ago aborted project, but as you can see, it's still there. And if lots of you download it, M$ will probably realise they haven't deleted it and remove it ;-).
...you need a WMA to Divx encoder for Linux!
And "these are not the droids your are looking for".
Yeah.. The subject says it all.
At the end of the day, sales are really all that matter, buy more Lindows copies, Linux games, avoid DirectX games, avoid XBox, bother accounting and other specialized app developers to port to Linux etc. If developers are financially encouraged, they WILL bite the dust and invest in months of Linux development time.
I cant wait till Microsoft ports IE6 to Linux... for $100 a bang.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
When will *somebody* notice how bad this is and refuse to make the effort? Porting WiMP to *anything* benefits nobody but Microsoft. There is no compelling advantage to WiMP technologically so the only reason to port it is to gain access to content. The solution is to demand the content in open formats not to bring the ability to play proprietary formats to open systems. Doing this will only give MS the wedge they need to control additional markets. If content producers perceive the market for WiMP encoded media as limited they won't make the media. If they think 'I can encode to WiMP and everybody can play it' the game is over and Microsoft controls the media.
Svensk er et fandens grimt sprog... hvornår lærer I det?
But might wanna hold off on the download for a while, because the usual routine also prescribes that there will be serious root-level exploits exposed once every three days for the first couple of years.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It's in the same class as MPEG4 and is based off of VP3, which while it's patented, On2's licensed it out in a GPL compatible manner.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
MPlayer already plays that stuff (plus a ton more), so why would be want windows media player with it's DRM and spyware technology?
Embedded Systems makers beware, supporting this will eventually invalidate the reasons you chose linux in the first place!
This move by Microsoft is to prevent Ogg Vorbis and other free codecs from dominating the Linux embedded market. Once Microsoft has the dominant codec, they'll stop supporting Linux and force you to buy some flavor of embedded windows or other platform they control to stay in business.
As soon as Microsoft has finished using its codecs to control the media-format choices in the embedded and desktop market, they will charge out the wazoo for this stuff and pry your Linux options out of your hands. DON'T FALL FOR IT. This is not a new strategy, most people LEARN of it through Micrsoft.
i don't
Dupe dee dupe dee dupe dupe dupe!
I disagree, what your saying is that there are no user space applications running on a set top box. I am not an expert in embedded devices, but I would assume that you don't put everything into the kernel and simply run it... doesn't sound like good design to me. So if there are userspace apps then they don't have to be GPL unless directly derived from the kernel
This is just sig!
...if someone finally notices that the very same thing came through here three days ago?
/. before they try to do something about it?
Here's a little cut&paste from slashdots search function, search term was "intervideo" with no restrictions:
Windows Media for Embedded Linux Systems
On April 11th, 2003 with 198 comments
ntmonkey writes "According to this article, Microsoft has authorized InterVideo to port Windows Media Player to Linux. However, WMP will not be available to...
Section: Main > Microsoft
Score: 0.5
Windows Media Format Could Hit Linux-Based Devices
On April 8th, 2003 with 260 comments
An anonymous reader writes "LinuxDevices.com reports that Microsoft has licensed InterVideo Inc. to supply Windows Media Technology to makers of Linux-based...
Section: Main > Media
Score: 0.5
Also I wonder how many more duplicates we'll see on
bye,
[L]
You can rightly accuse Microsoft of many things but being dumb isn't one of them. Due to their lack of headway in the embedded systems market and the extreme popularity of Linux in this same market Microsoft is smart enough not to mortgage the Windows Media farm on the success of their embedded OSes.
The cynical among us might think that by porting Windows Media to Linux and then "enhancing" the Windows versions faster than the Linux version you could lure Linux-committed companies to make an "easy port" to CE. Personally I think it should be watched-for but unlikely as embedded-Windows is decent, companies are abandoning it not for functionality issues, but cost and choice -- things much more important in the embedded space.
beware linux users:
security holes for free lol!!!
I want to see linux users using technology from micros*ck... maybe this is a strategy to weak linux.
one lol for M$*ck
Mine already works under Linux using Wine without any need to port the code. These guys did a good job.
lol m$%k s#cks lol
"Theyve lost the race with MS Office, lost Exchange, SQL server races long time ago"
What color is the sky in your world?
IE has been my browser of choice for my Windows and Sun SPARS/Solaris systems; fewer crashes than Netscape. This is a side-by-side comparison.
This is a good thing for MS and customers as well. If they would quit trying to play monopoly, and just play along they would undoubtablely still be the top dog--they just keep trying to be the only dog, which is legally and morally wrong and most people know that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Windows Media format is AMAZING.
It compresses very well without losing quality and also has the option to get even smaller sizes with lossy compression
AMAZING
It also has Digital Rights Management system built-in ---something that your CRAPPY opensource formats like ogg (FUCK ogg) cannot do. This is a lot more important than you think. It protects American money from being eaten up by losers. opensource CRAPformats cannot guarantee Digital Rights Management because it is not controled by a great American company like Microsoft. (FUCK all who doesnt).
BTW did you FOOLS LIBERAL SCUM
WATCH some TV you MORON
SEE who has WON
USA ALWAYS WINS
USA! USA! USA!
Did you bleeding heart liberal scum see how much love and respect the iraqi people showered on our brave troops. We are ALWAYS right.
If a quality, free, open audio compression framework (ogg vorbis) has failed to dent the mp3 stranglehold on the consumer market or radar (portables, DVD players that play mp3's, toasters that play audio, car players, etc....) how in the hell will the closed, crappy, M$ born WMA stand a chance?
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
In a set-top box I expect everything to be linked together into a single application. I do not expect to have an interface which lets me write programs or obtain applications from an external source.
Then you're an idiot. The set top box will still need to be upgraded, it will still need something like a filesystem to cache program information on, and it will still need the flexibility to download other programs (small games, etc) to play.
Nvidia does not distribute their software bundled with the Linux kernel. Because the end-user is responsible for obtaining and installing the Linux kernel, Nvidia does not need to agree to the GPL.
Irrelevant. If you distribute a program, in source or binary, that dynamically links with libreadline (GPL library, with no exceptions), that program is still treated as if it has been statically linked with libreadline. There is no legal difference between dynamic and static linking -- the intention behind both is identical, so you can't use that technicality to get around it.
Of course, I don't belive that's ever been tested in court, but that's the stance of the FSF, and no one has yet given any compelling reason why it's wrong.
as others have said already, go read the GPL again. just becouse its in the same box does not mean it requires the source to be released, as it doesnt include any GPL'ed code in there source theer keeping closed.
"... until it gets ripped off a box and distributed for general use?" why's this any easier to on linux than on windoze?
It would simply be more "useful" on linux. Why steal something from a Windows box when it already exists in Windows legitimately?
No, I am saying that the distinction between user space and kernel space is irrelavent on a set-top box. A set-top box is a single-purpose box, like a printer. The software that it runs, no matter what mode verious parts of it runs in, is a single application. If that application is derived from the Linux kernel, it must be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
...since July last year. Go fetch.
Hello? Is this brain on? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
but my latin years are some time ago. Might pretty well be wrong. But i looked it up some time ago and thought it should work out. And after all, its just for fun ;-)
Separate programs are separate programs whether they are running on your home pc or on a set top box. I understand that a set top box is single purpose, but they only thing that would require GPL licensing is the software that was modified directly from a previously GPL licenced piece of software.
I'll give you a couple of examples. Safari, which is Apple's new browser based on the khtml engine from kde is NOT released under the GPL, in fact they are staying quite closed about their updates. The only thing that has been released are the specific changes to the khtml engine, and this is in agreeance with the GPL.
Another example, this time a set top box, would be Tivo. Their entire box is based almost soley upon Linux, obviously the kernel is GPL, not sure what other software they are using in the box, but I do know that you cannot go to Tivo.com and download their software and create you're own tivo machines. Hence the projects like Freevo and others to emulate what Tivo is doing. Here is a set top box, that uses the linux Kernel, but doesn't release their software under the GPL.
So once again I will reiterate that they would NOT have to release their code under the GPL just to use it in a set top box.
The only way they would is if they directly modified the kernel or some other GPL licenced software to include support for WMP.... and that would be just STUPID
but hey they are microsoft right?
This is just sig!
Interesting. I didn't know that TiVo used the Linux kernel. Do they make the sources for the kernel available as required by the GPL? I didn't see anything about either the Linux kernel or sources on their Web site, but there might be something in their user documentation. I don't have a TiVo myself; I am waiting for the HDTV version.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
After a little googling I turned up this looks like they do provide their mod's to the public.
This is just sig!
Thank you for the reference. Although I haven't downloaded the files, the README leads me to believe that they are serious about making available the sources for the kernel, since they include the tools necessary to use it. I am disappointed that they do not include all of their software. Apparently they don't buy my argument that all the software in a set-top box constitutes a single application. Is there a link to the "linux" page from their home page? I was unable to find one.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)