Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Fedora Advisory Board (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-advisory-board/)
-   -   codec buddy, fluendo, etc. (http://www.linux-archive.org/fedora-advisory-board/50657-codec-buddy-fluendo-etc.html)

Greg DeKoenigsberg 02-08-2008 07:35 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, seth vidal wrote:



On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:28 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, seth vidal wrote:


Specific questions to be answered:

0. Invite the Fluendo folks to join.


This is a bad idea and it looks like collusion.


Wait... what? Explain this, because I don't see how transparent
discussions about user experience equal "collusion".


do we invite gnome developers to discussion about gnome in the distro?
Not generally.


...so isn't that kind of a problem? If the GNOME folks came to us and
said "we want to make GNOME on Fedora a better experience," would that be
in any way problematic?



It puts us into a precarious political and ethical situation. So I see
very little good from it at this point.


That's your opinion. There are others.


Was there some confusion about whom I was speaking for? It's always my
opinion. Cmon, Greg, you know this.


Sorry. It sounded like you thought the discussion itself would do very
little good. Miscommunication.


--g

--
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Jeff Spaleta" 02-08-2008 07:36 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Feb 8, 2008 11:24 AM, seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Does my email address says "seth vidal fedora board member - all my
> pronouncements are equivalent to edicts from the FPL"?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> the only person I represent is me.

I'm more upset that people don't make the same assumption for me. I'm
throwing out personal opinions couched in the language of royal edict
all the time.

I even puff myself up, don a crown, slip on all of my big school rings
that I own, and put on a purple robe when I write them... or i should
say dictate them to my scribe.

I guess I'm just gonna have to start using the royal we when I speak
from now on.

-jef"my royal scepter is a wii-mote"spaleta

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Stephen John Smoogen" 02-08-2008 07:50 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Feb 8, 2008 1:24 PM, seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 15:20 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:30 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:28 -0500, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, seth vidal wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Specific questions to be answered:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 0. Invite the Fluendo folks to join.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a bad idea and it looks like collusion.
> > > >
> > > > Wait... what? Explain this, because I don't see how transparent
> > > > discussions about user experience equal "collusion".
> > >
> > > do we invite gnome developers to discussion about gnome in the distro?
> > > Not generally.
> >
> > I beg your pardon ? I would ask you to reconsider that position. You may
> > be a member of the board, but you are not the ruler who takes decisions
> > above the heads of the affected people.
> >
>
> okay, I'm deeply confused here. This is the second time today that
> someone has taken an email from me as a declaration from on high.
>
> Is there a tagline being appended to my emails that says "and yes, I
> speak for everyone and everything in all cases, no matter what?"
>
> Is there some reason why people think I'm speaking for anyone other than
> myself?
>
> Does my email address says "seth vidal fedora board member - all my
> pronouncements are equivalent to edicts from the FPL"?
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> the only person I represent is me.
>

An issue with any 'elected' or appointed member is that most people
do not see their views as just representing themselves. They see it as
representing the entities that elected or appointed them to that
position. I think the current explanation is that it comes with the
brain trying to deal with large segments of data by depersonifying the
representative (you are supposed to represent my views to the board,
and when you do not you must be acting under the sway of some other
force). It seems deeply wired in the brain with the usual partisan
switches and such that make for people to work in clans/tribes/etc
versus just killing and eating each other like we really would like to
do.

I think because of this, it is always better for an elected or
appointed person to label when they are speaking as a representative
or as their own personal selves. The statement helps to clarify the
mental image that one makes when reading. Is the writer talking about
their own opinion (somewhat threatening to the inner Oook inside us
all) or are they representing a vast horde of invading Cannibalistic
tofu eaters bent on devouring the reader (Oook get ready to fight or
flee).


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Stephen John Smoogen" 02-08-2008 07:51 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Feb 8, 2008 1:36 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2008 11:24 AM, seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Does my email address says "seth vidal fedora board member - all my
> > pronouncements are equivalent to edicts from the FPL"?
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
> >
> > the only person I represent is me.
>
> I'm more upset that people don't make the same assumption for me. I'm
> throwing out personal opinions couched in the language of royal edict
> all the time.
>
> I even puff myself up, don a crown, slip on all of my big school rings
> that I own, and put on a purple robe when I write them... or i should
> say dictate them to my scribe.
>
> I guess I'm just gonna have to start using the royal we when I speak
> from now on.
>
> -jef"my royal scepter is a wii-mote"spaleta

that should be "our royal scepter is a Wii-mote." A bit more training
and you will have it.



--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Karsten 'quaid' Wade" 02-09-2008 03:42 AM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 15:26 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@gmail.com) said:
> >> 2. What improvements would we like to see in Codec Buddy and/or codeina?
> >
> > My number one gripe is that there's no help for people who can get codecs
> > where they are not patented. As a minimal step, mentioning that the
> > patents don't exist everywhere and that free software implementations do
> > exist would make me feel better. However, that is only going to be helpful
> > to more advanced users who will read that and know that they can turn to
> > google for help. We need to come up with questions for the lawyers that
> > determine just how far we can push the envelope. (Can we add the wording I
> > mention? Can we point people to a specific google search?)
>
> Spot has been through this a few times, as far as I recall. I believe
> the wording is that we are allowed to mention sites that host software
> that 'for whatever reasons' Fedora cannot include. We can not go into
> specifics as to what that software is, how that relates to why we can't
> include it, etc., which makes linking to it directly from any CodecBuddy
> notifications pretty much impossible; that's why we don't have any such
> links on the wiki right now.

As for the question about the specific Google search, I've asked about
that in the past, and it links in to what Bill said. You can see the
best example of what we are allowed to say here:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

From the second to last paragraph in the Summary:

The Fedora Project FAQ and the more informal, unofficial
http://fedorafaq.org provide useful answers on commonly asked
questions. However, the unofficial site is not associated with
or supported by the Fedora Project. You can find many
interesting things using a search engine like Google.
OtherRepositories might contain software that has been not been
included in the official Fedora repository.

The interesting phrase being, "You can find many interesting things
using a search engine like Google," with the word 'Google' linking to
the search tool itself (http://google.com to be specific.)

So, we can tell people that they may find their answers in Google, but
we cannot tell them the answers to what ... nor what words to search
on ... nor provide an example search that is contributory infringement.

Clear as mud?

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Karsten 'quaid' Wade" 02-09-2008 06:10 AM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:17 -0500, Max Spevack wrote:

> (1) CodecBuddy was a Board-level decision that was made with the
> understanding that after it had been in Fedora for a while, we would
> evaluate the various pros and cons of how it was going and figure out if
> it should stay in, be removed, or be modified.

Yes, and at least one intended effect has worked. It has continued to
raise the issue of codecs and what Fedora is unable to do.

I'm confused a bit, and I'm asking for some reasoned explanation,
because Hans description doesn't jibe with the reality I experienced
(refer to below) ... and because the hyperbolic fears on
fedora-devel-list don't jibe with what I experience or know ... it makes
it hard to decide if codeina can be fixed or does it need to be made a
sacrifice of?

Hans raises a point in his thread opening[1]:

"... we also ship the blacker then black, actually automatically
downloading closed source code, not content but code!
codecbuddy. Not only does it automatically download some gratis
closed source code, it even offers the user to buy closed source
code, effectively free advertising for commercial closed
source!"

Where does this blacker-than-black act occur? It's not happening to me
with Totem and my installed-from-Live-CD-then-updated-and-packages-added
copy of Fedora 8. Oh, look, codeina isn't installed. Nor does it
report as a required package (from 'repoquery --whatrequires codeina'.)
How do I get this automatic evil? Apparently I have to install the
Sound and Video group and not from the live CD.

So, if I intentionally set out to get packages that deal with Sound and
Video, codeina is slipped into the mix as a default. I can see that is
supposed to happen that way, although not sure why I didn't get it
before.

Without codeina, trying to play an MP3 got me an error that, "The
playback of this movie requires a MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3) decoder plugin
which is not installed." Aside from the grammatical errors, I don't get
much help from that, esp. if I have no idea wtf a codec is.

Now, I installed it, let's see what happens. I attempt to play an MP3.
Now I get the famous dialog[2]. In that window, "About ..." is a link
to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CodecBuddy. That's pretty good, and
informative!

"See available options" brings up the Codec Installer with Fluendo MP3
Audio Decoder checked, not installed, and priced as "Free." I presume
it is checked because I attempted to play that audio format. I also get
the option of purchasing the "MPEG Playback Bundle." Selecting that
throws up another dialog box that says[3] I can't get it (yet) this way,
I have to go buy it on a web shop.

Finally, clicking on "Start Web Browser" takes me somewhere for full
corruption.

OK, I've never been pleased with the results of that effort. I wanted
there to be no way to directly install or buy software, and instead the
dialog states that such functionality is the goal of codeina. What I
wanted to see was just the link to the CodecBuddy page. Then we could
control directly what happens in that page, including potentially
linking out to vendors with solutions that are legal in certain places.
Or not.

I agreed to letting codeina continue to be included with the current
functionality with the following understanding:

1. We are trying it out, seeing people say (good and bad), see what we
feel over time, see how raising the visibility of the codec issue works
out.

2. We can always remove it from the distribution.

3. The functionality to pay and install from the codeina dialog has to
go; if we can maintain a patch, then we don't have to require it of the
upstream code. If not, we had to get upstream to change, or drop the
package.

Max is just returning us to that discussion, which I'm comfortable with.

After trying the whole experience out, I don't see where evil is
automatically committed on my system. It seems that I have to come with
the intention of playing sound and video, then click through multiple
locations to get to where I can legally buy something that lets me play
my sound and video. Along the way I'm forced to view one education,
have another one available just one click away, have three chances to
stop and back out, and only by reading carefully and persisting do I
find myself with a a plugin installed.

Thanks - Karsten

[1]
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-February/msg00476.html

[2]
Proprietary and free formats

Fedora has the mission of always being freely re-distributable;
this means you are free to give your copy of Fedora to anyone
else.

Unfortunately, that means that we cannot ship support for
certain multimedia codecs, as they require patent licenses
before you can view or play media that use them. Imagine if you
had to pay a license fee before reading your e-mail, or viewing
a picture on the web. This is why Fedora supports free formats,
such as Ogg Vorbis and Theora.

However, there are companies and communities that do offer
support for certain codecs under Fedora. If you would like to
install support, please proceed to see the available options.

For more information, see About Proprietary and Free Formats.

[] Do not show me this message again.

[Cancel] [See available options]

[3]

Getting plugins

At the moment this application does not support purchasing
plugins directly from the Fluendo web shop yet.

Please buy and download the selected plugins from the web shop
and once you have done that install them using the 'Install
downloaded plugin archive' menu item from the File menu.

I will now open the Fluendo web shop in a browser.

[Cancel] [Start Web Browser]

--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

Christopher Blizzard 02-09-2008 04:22 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:




It puts us into a precarious political and ethical situation. So
I see

very little good from it at this point.


I'll make a bolder statement... there is very little good associated
with any issue involving patent encumbered codecs or data formats
generally. I don't care what we do, we're not going to end up with a
good outcome. I'd like to actually have something like miro in
fedora, making use of codeina, so that we can actually have a
constructive forward looking conversation with miro and its sponsors
about going the next step and actually helping to produce good open
format editting tools to start bootstrapping our way out of this
frelling mess. I'm very unhappy on where miro stance on 'format wars'
They've taken a complete pass on the very issue. If we take a
complete pass as well, we'll give developers in this space a reason to
ignore us.


I think that Miro probably did the right thing on this topic. They
pushed the problem down the operating system. Also, a video player
that didn't play any of the video that's available on the web doesn't
seem like a very compelling offering, does it? Those guys are doing
what Mozilla did - building a consumer brand around an experience and
leveraging as much of the existing infrastructure as possible (OS
support for codecs, Mozilla for an engine, etc) and taking it directly
to the public.


I'm not sure why we get to project our concerns onto their project.
Mozilla got the advantage of at least starting with an open format and
continues to improve it vs. Miro where they have only closed content
to consume and are trying to make it as open as possible. Miro won't
have leverage until they have a lot of users and open formats _also
_provide better tools or something better that actually creates value
or people creating content with that format.





The whole thing blows big monkey chunks. The fact that you need this
crap to make flash usable is going to be an increasing more and more
painful, because in the bright kickass future of web 2.0 and online
desktop....we are screwed because flash is an integral part of this
stuff when it comes to video.


Yup. And the fact that it's hard to get any of the browser vendors
other than Mozilla and Opera to even consider including free-as-in-
speech codecs is a sign that we've got a problem. Apple will likely
be the first to ship <video> support in the browser and I'll bet that
you can guess which formats it will support. Opera might be second,
or Mozilla might be, it's hard to tell. But that doesn't help the
fact that Flash is going to be the main source for video for quite a
while to come. It's the only solution that's available everywhere.


I can't believe that the solution here is to punish users because
we're pissed about the state of open video. I believe that the
solution has to be to focus on building great tools for creating video
for open formats, taking the format itself to a place where the others
fear going and making it so dead easy for anyone to create and consume
video in those formats that they take the web by storm. You can't win
by stopping people from doing something. You can only win by giving
them the tools so that the right thing is also the natural thing.
(Oh, and it's going to have work on more than just Linux.)



What if codeina was reworked such that by default we only made no-cost
items available by default after the education page?

What if codeina was reworked such that different service providers
could drop in support for their codecs? For example, so that
livna/rpmfusion could configure codeina when the release rpm was
installed?

If the Fluendo can task people to halp make those sorts of changes
isn't worth inviting them to a discussion?


Is there actually another vendor for this stuff that's also legal?

--Chris

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

Christopher Blizzard 02-09-2008 04:25 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Feb 8, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:


0. Invite the Fluendo folks to join.


As Seth said, we want to avoid the appearance of cutting a deal.
This would be somewhat alleviated if there were other legal
alternatives that could be incorporated.


What's wrong with a deal here? (Is there something wrong with
business transactions in general?) And once again, what's your second
source for codecs that are legal right now?


--Chris

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Karsten 'quaid' Wade" 02-10-2008 06:20 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 23:10 -0800, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:

> Where does this blacker-than-black act occur? It's not happening to me
> with Totem and my installed-from-Live-CD-then-updated-and-packages-added
> copy of Fedora 8. Oh, look, codeina isn't installed. Nor does it
> report as a required package (from 'repoquery --whatrequires codeina'.)
> How do I get this automatic evil? Apparently I have to install the
> Sound and Video group and not from the live CD.

In thinking about it further, I believe I did an upgrade from F7 using
the DVD (rescue CD and DVD mounted over http). So, that is likely why I
didn't have codeina installed.

Also, I have since heard about the bug that made the explanation dialog
not appear; I didn't see that because I installed codeina from -updates.

We've had several unfortunate timing problems and bugs that caused
things to not appear as they should. It might be that the codeina
implementation sucks eggs, in the end, but the goal was not egg suckage.
It was to first inform, then legally enable, our users.

What is the approach we should now take with this, autodownloader, etc.?

There is a legal line and a moral line. We are careful not to cross the
former, but we are having a hard time defining and keeping to the
latter.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

"Jeff Spaleta" 02-10-2008 06:58 PM

codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
 
On Feb 10, 2008 10:20 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade <kwade@redhat.com> wrote:
> There is a legal line and a moral line. We are careful not to cross the
> former, but we are having a hard time defining and keeping to the
> latter.


My moral line:

We are not going to include closed source code directly in the
repository we control, which is designed to execute on the computer
architecture we build and release for.

We will not include open source code that could only interact with
proprietary data, but we will not hamper the user's ability to use
proprietary data ( which is taken to mean copyrighted in such a way
that is not distributable directly by Fedora, but still legally usable
by individual users) whether that data is music, videos, web pages,
documents,etc. This does not mean that "useful" open data has to be
available..but it must be demonstratable that open content can be
created for consumption by the code in question. Such open data does
not need to be created using open tools, though of course that is
preferable.

We recognize that the line between code and data can be muddy,
especially when we cross hardware or network boundaries or use
emulation. We will continue to work on refining the policy in these
areas. We recognize that our policy decisions will inevitable be prune
to inconsistency due to the complexity of the situation, and we
apologize in advance.

We will limit any Fedora specific patching of upstream code projects
which aims to remove user access to legally obtainable proprietary
helper executables (plugins) or legally obtainable proprietary data.
Some upstream projects have built frameworks which make it easier for
end-users to access legal proprietary plugins. These plugins are
outside the scope of our packaging repository which we directly
control. While we continue to endeavor to users to use and contribute
to the development of open tools over proprietary solutions, we
recognize that our users make their own choices.. and the the upstream
projects similarly make their own choices as to what to functionality
to expose to end users.

If upstream projects that use plugin detection technology are willing
to support a choice of both open and closed plugins for the same task,
then we are content to pass on that choice to the user. But if an
upstream project prefers to only present proprietary solutions and
makes no room for an open choice for the same task.. then we have
cause to disable that plugin detection technology in our releases.


How's that for a manifesto?

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.