Slashdot Mirror
Skype For Linux To Be Open-Sourced "In the Nearest Future"
rysiek writes "Seems like there might be a revolution in the works, as far as VoIP software for Linux is concerned. After mailing Skype support about Skype providing Mandriva RPM packages, Olivier Faurax got an answer which suggests that the Linux Skype client will be open-sourced. After asking for verification of whether that was the case, the tech support answer claimed it is going to happen, and that it's supposed to happen 'in the nearest future.' Now, this probably only means the client (the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library), but even if that's the case, it seems like there is still reason to celebrate."
Means I can create a client to automatically order in chinese.. or maybe a chipotle burrito and some fresh underwear
Not quite open source then, but I guess it's better than the situation right now. Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though.
I'm trying to grasp what could possibly be the "nearest future"? A picosecond from now? But of course, you could have half a picosecond, and half that, and half that, etc.
Proverbs 21:19
I use a lot of voice software on my laptop, and Skype is one of the few that is fine with my not using a headset. I'm not certain how it does it, but I assume they're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input. I've always wanted to take Skype's client and plug it into, say, Ventrilo.
Could this open up that possibility?
With something like Skype, pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol(and the weird stuff that it gets up to, burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth). The UI isn't ghastly; but it isn't very interesting.
Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest. As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.
Hopefully this means that libpurple, telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.
Once you get users out of a proprietary client, it's that much easier to transition them to a more open equivalent.
"You mean I just get a SIP account and calls cost less than with Skype?" Sold!
Not OSS. Nothing to see here, move along...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
So, assuming the OP is right, they're basically open-sourcing a telephone where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like. Maybe I'm missing the point, but how does this benefit anyone?
Nowhere in the article (er .. blog post) it's said that there will be a binary component. It's just a guess from a comment from some random guy.
So no need to ague ad libitum on what will be Free software or not, let's wait.
I call bullshit. I think it's just a tech support guy misunderstanding (and it seems a bi-lingual conversation so the chances of that are even higher).
Open-sourcing Skype is very different to allowing Mandriva to add a non-trademarked icon to the Skype software (a bit like bundling Firefox - fine so long as you respect the trademark on the name and/or the logo and their requirements), or put a Mandriva icon onto the package etc. The two are discussed interchangeably and I don't see how they are related.
I think it's more likely a massive misunderstanding on the basis of zero evidence / poor translation. At best, I reckon that Skype for Linux will allow itself to be packaged more easily.
From a practical perpsective this is good news and a step forward.
However, if part of this "open source" announcement means a binary-blob needs to be included on an open-source OS (e.g. Linux) should we still be worried?
Off the top of my head I can think of graphics cards, wireless network adapters, software and scanner-type devices that need binary "blobs" to be usable.
I am worried because this could be a growing trend of reliance on companies policy of releasing binary only software onto a open-source OS.
E.g. I have a laptop with an ATI-based graphics card (r200M). I have been using the closed source driver to enable me to enjoy meaningful 3d-accelerated performace on my laptop. Unfortunately the new version of the driver(9.10?) now considers my card "legacy" which means the previous version (9.2) will not compile with the latest Xorg release.
If the driver was *fully* open source then at least something can be done about it.
I had to deal with this with MS Windows - it's one of the many reasons I use Linux.
This is the same old story. The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.
I didn't bother reading TFA so maybe someone else can inform us how would one go about acquiring the binary blob in the future? What distros will the blob track? What about an ARM build? Ebay wants to limit their dev hours but abandoning the gui doesn't help them much.
Which is why I think they'll just abandon the OS altogether sooner rather than later and put a happy face on it with this stunt.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
1) In a bilingual conversation, Skype support employee says "Skype will from now on be part of the open source community."
2) Blogger posts saying that Skype will be open sourced in nearest future
3) get reposted on various blogs
4) ???
5) Verified "news" on slashdot
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
A Skype-SIP gateway server. And then abandon all and everything that is Skype from my systems. (Except for the gateway on one server, of course.)
I'll open-source that too, and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs, until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity, until the end of all time.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Mod parent redundant
U mean the worst VIOP/Teleconference software out there? Who even uses it? They must be on the way out to consider such a move.
If they use some kind of codec, it would assume certain things about the data (being voice data, frequency limits and spectrum, etc.) which might be totally mixed up by prepending an encryption. So maybe sound quality would be horrible, or decryption on the other side totally impossible.
The source is not open, until I can build and use it on FreeBSD/amd64 or some other "exotic" platform like that...
Interestingly, the oft-criticized Java has always been more "open-sourced" (even before going GPL), than what the excited write-up is preparing to "celebrate"... Must all be about managing expectations...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I would actually be perfectly happy with a situation like this. This was as far as I can understand the original purpose of the gpl before people started going crazy and getting greedy. People wanted to be able to fix software that was created and then abandoned. With the source being closed the only way to fix a closed chunk of software would be to totally recreate the software using best guess as to what it was doing and how.
If a manufacture no longer wishes to support something, this is the best solution imo. OSS can never truly become abandoned, if I find some software that I like and it is no longer supported.
I am free:
--take the software
--update the libraries
--fix any bugs
--share (maybe start a project so other people can make fixes)
--???
--profit.
That is what the gpl meant to me before people got greedy, before people started to worship, before it became a religion...
"The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it"
..
How do you deduce this from a single blog post
"the Linux Skype version will become open source in the nearest future"
After contacting Skype's representative,Linuxcrunch.com got an update for this issue: "We appreciate our user community's enthusiasm and realize this is something they have been wanting for a while. We realize the potential of the open source community and believe that making Skype for Linux an open source application will help to speed up its development and enhance its compatibility with different versions of Linux. While it is our goal to make Skype for Linux source code available to the community in the nearest future, we are not at a point to disclose an exact release date yet."
http://www.itwadi.com
Skype is a huge source of pain when people discuss Linux audio. It's possible to get it working (mainly by pretending pulseaudio doesn't exist), but so many people have so many problems with it that there's still a widespread belief that it's completely broken. If only the client-facing parts get open sourced, the audio interface ought to be part of that. The protocol, as far as I can tell, works pretty damn good (despite it occasionally telling me someone's offline when I know they're not). I'm fine with not having access to that. But I really want someone to put in decent audio compatibility.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Skype is an evil closed source platform as we speak.
I believe it once I see it. And "open sourced" can mean anything at all, tell me the license when the deed is done. If it's done!
In other news Luxemburg might declare war on the US of A...
We don't need shit like this on /. thank you.
"I'll open-source that too, and will make huge enterprisey pitches for the PHBs, until the closed-source virus that is Skype dies out for all eternity, until the end of all time."
Much like Apple will die out. Here's a clue, Skype did for VOIP what Apple did for computers. Made it easier for the average person to be a participant.
Right now getting Skype running is simple download, install, run, create account, enjoy. SIP is a little less Plug and Play.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
You'd throw a party for just about anything it seems. Who cares if they threw us a bone (GUI). Unless they free the protocol, stop making fuss for no reason.
Free as in binaries included. Pfft.
PS. No really, what would we be happy about?
.. is not open source. There is no such thing as partial-open source software, if that were the case, I could write software code in Perl that shows an interface, that calls DLL functions and call it open source. Sorry, no reason to celebrate here... Move along..
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
http://share.skype.com/sites/linux/2009/11/skype_open_source.html
Last I checked, a few months ago, there didn't seem to be any simple options for running skype on a 64-bit GNU/Linux machine.
Mod parent redundant, not offtopic.
I remember getting reamed-out by a support tech on the Skype forums for even hinting that an open source client might make solving problems alot easier - I hope he enjoys eating his words now.
Ever since moving to Linux, Skype has been the only thing other than MS Office that doesn't have an equal in terms of both quality and user base (at least, where user base is a factor). The main problems with Skype on Linux has been its ability to keep the client compatible with the constantly changing landscape in sound systems, from OSS, to ALSA, to PulseAudio, to ...? Add to that the multitude of versions/distros, etc. If the client is open sourced, then you can download the responsibility of porting the application to different environments onto those with the skill/time/inclination to do so. And if nobody ever does port the client to sound system x on distro y, then at least they would have a valid reason to say there's not enough demand to bother.
Just my general opinion anyway.
Obviously the protocol will remain closed source. However everything else, apparently will be open. Basically anybody can build not Skype support into their applications. For example Empathy will have built in support for skype, or even GoogleTalk! Now this is less than ideal. But given that the main problem in the current client is the mess in which it has to operate (PulseAudio support, mainly), and the painfully slow development cycle, this can only be good news.
The corporate meaning of "open source" seems to be, as often as not, "we will not support it any longer, but we want a client on your platform and you can use it". Their support and implementation of the Linux client thus far has been, if anything, sub-par and fairly static in development changes.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Maybe some FOSS hackers can finally make bluetooth work on Skype. (and I don't mean bluetooth libraries from 2002)
I use 64-bit (Ubuntu 9.10, Skype 2.1 beta), and video works for me.
Involvement with Nokia & Maemo has anything to do with this ?
Assuming that the UI includes the part how the audio stream reaches the audio driver, this is great news. Someone could finally fix the audio issues (use ALSA non-exclusively or even make it use PulseAudio). Furthermore, this would make it possible to bridge skype and FreeSwitch or Asterisk. Imagine making skype calls an integrated part of your company's telephone network without resorting to dirty tricks!
This will help us out incredibly. As a volunteer organisation helping promote education in Isaan, Thailand this will reduce the potential for costs considerably. We try to use Linux as best we can as we cannot afford to buy expensive operating systems and our computers are getting on a bit and aren't anywhere near as good as modern systems. Our Gap year students, volunteers and founders mostly use Apple + Microsoft to communicate but with Skype being added to Linux we can all keep in touch whilst keeping the costs down. I'm glad Skype have decided to take the road of "multicultural" Open Source developers as the community will drive the project home to a stable finish and ensure that everything is transparent within it. We were thinking of going down the Google Voice route but this has definitely made us change our minds.
Volunteering for social justice in Thailand, Guatamala and the Dominican Republic.
With something like Skype, pretty much all the stuff of interest is in the protocol(and the weird stuff that it gets up to, burrowing through firewalls and being designed to be heavily resistant to inspection and so forth). The UI isn't ghastly; but it isn't very interesting. Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest. As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.
Well, the OSS frontend will use the binary back-end, implicitly documenting its APIs to some extent. This means that you can write your own frontend with a better GUI than the horrible one provided by skype. Better yet, one could probably write a plugin for chat/voip applications allowing them to use skype as a backend, so you won't even have to run a separate skype application anymore.
What is the drive to continue using a proprietary protocol where there is an open, standards-based protocol (SIP) that already has such a wide-spread implementation? The skype "front-end" being open-sourced provides no more benefit to anybody than MS "open-sourcing" a front-end that writes docx files for the sole purpose of ensuring the survival of their proprietary document formats.
Besides, if the front-end depends on a closed source library to function it absolutely can not be under the GPL. As Stallman states, allowing this would "open up a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through".
Garbage. And to the concern about "opening ports for sip" this is also irrelevant unless you are hosting your own SIP server instead of using any of the free SIP services / proxies. SIP+RTP would function in the exact same manner as skype in this regard.
When I read this headline my first thought was this is to complete with Google. Google is planning to release google video for linux when they do a netbook OS or something like that. So many netbooks use linux (even though wondows is making inroads). And people buy netbooks for VOIP - I did. Right now Skype on Linux is clunky. It is doable but it is also a pain. Skype is also almost synonymous with VOIP. Few people know what VOIP is but many know what Skype is. Like Kleenex. But Google could disrupt that gravy train because Gmail is so ubiquiotous and it really isn't far away from having the video chat work from "inside" Gmail - if they did it on Linux too for netbooks they could really usurp that title the way Google Usurped Yahoo's king of the search engine title so long ago.
Just my thoughts. I was pining for the Linux Google Video feature a while ago while I was setting up Skype (and it was a pain) because I thought it might be easier. Also it would be much easier to use with my email addressbook than the few people I have bookmarked in Skype.
But the problems with Skype in Linux are relatively minor: things you can (and we do) hack around. But this is a big obstacle for many non-techy users like my wife who had to wait for me to do it for her. So if they open up Skype (or just symbolically go through the motions and get more geeky hacking) then may;be they can get over the little bugs like figuring out the quirky microphone settings required for skype to work on my netbook well... such that I don't have to hack it my self and people have no reason to desire a Google replacement.
Still it will be tough for Skype because Gmail video can really just blow they away if it is done half well - 1 program instead of two - or 0 (browser doesn't count) obstacle to adoption.
Stupidity is its own reward.