Fluendo's New Codecs Support VDPAU, VA-API

[myxal]

It must be really funny to buy something that you get for free too...

Oh? Is there a free (in any sense) VDPAU implementation for GStreamer I'm unaware of? Given that status of the idea is NEW, not RESOLVED, I'd say no.

[whizse]

Read the bug report again, VDPAU support has been merged to -bad, but it needs more work.

[yotambien]

It must be really funny to buy something that you get for free too... If it would be at least a BluRay player i could accept it, but buying codecs must be a joke. I would try it if it would for free but nothing more.

Bah. "Offers legal codecs" suggests that the other codecs (mplayer, VLC) are illegal. Why the hell would Phoronix imply something like that.

Exactly my thoughts. As long as FFmpeg keeps kicking so much ass there's no reason for any regular user to buy into this. Overall, I would consider the existence of Fluendo products positive; they provide a presumably legal and apparently hassle-free solution for those situations where a legal solution is required. But it should always be stressed that a) these legal requirements are not universal; b) there's nothing stopping any interested party from obtaining a license for other codecs. It's not like FFmpeg codecs have the black mark of evil precluding any legitimate use even in those parts of the world with a "creative" approach to software patents.

Actually, products such as Fluendo's could be used to raise awareness of how screwed up the situation regarding software patents is in some parts of the world. For instance, distributions could promptly and accurately inform users why they can't ship certain products in some countries, by explicitly naming them, and invite users of other countries to merrily download whatever codecs they need from some mirror of their own (not cowardly washing their hands leaving the job to some guy maintaining Debian multimedia or so).

Instead, the current situation is quite different. This is how Fluendo codecs are sold in Canonical store:

Fluendo Complete Playback Pack

This product contains plug-ins which allow you to play certain proprietary audio and video formats. These plug-ins are not included in the default Ubuntu distribution because they are not free software. Ubuntu is driven by strong support for the principles of free and open source software, and these principles govern what we can and will include in Ubuntu. However, we recognise the common need for plug-ins such as these, and offer them here to provide a safe and legal way for our users to play back video and audio in the formats they wish.

Well, this is seriously missleading on some accounts, and patently false on others.

1. In contradiction to their claim about not incuding "these plug-ins" in the default distribution because of their closed nature, we find, as perfectly expected, VLC in the universe repository. Both VLC and FFmpeg are free and open source software. If they have any doubts about it perhaps they should read their licenses.

2. By the same principles they quote to justify their decisions on what to include in their distribution, they should provide an accurate view of the situation rather than use scaremongering tactics to get some extra cash (nothing wrong with making money, of course). This is, if they get as serious as to qualify the use of other products as unsafe and illegal, the least I'd expect is a clear explanation of what these dangers are and who could possibly be exposed. As it is now, it amounts to FUD.

[Remco]

2. By the same principles they quote to justify their decisions on what to include in their distribution, they should provide an accurate view of the situation rather than use scaremongering tactics to get some extra cash (nothing wrong with making money, of course). This is, if they get as serious as to qualify the use of other products as unsafe and illegal, the least I'd expect is a clear explanation of what these dangers are and who could possibly be exposed. As it is now, it amounts to FUD.

I completely agree. Fear is not a problem, as long as it is not combined with uncertainty/doubt.

[ModplanMan]

1. In contradiction to their claim about not incuding "these plug-ins" in the default distribution because of their closed nature, we find, as perfectly expected, VLC in the universe repository. Both VLC and FFmpeg are free and open source software. If they have any doubts about it perhaps they should read their licenses.

2. By the same principles they quote to justify their decisions on what to include in their distribution, they should provide an accurate view of the situation rather than use scaremongering tactics to get some extra cash (nothing wrong with making money, of course). This is, if they get as serious as to qualify the use of other products as unsafe and illegal, the least I'd expect is a clear explanation of what these dangers are and who could possibly be exposed. As it is now, it amounts to FUD.

1. Universe is a community maintained repository. It is not officially supported by Canonical, and is subject to a different set of rules regarding Ubuntu packaging policy.

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing

In the universe component you will find just about every other piece of software you can imagine, under a huge variety of licenses... really the full software universe. If you install software from universe please ensure you take the time to check the license for yourself.

2. It is not scaremongering to state that using unlicensed codecs may be illegal and makes it so that they cannot ship them by default, and that they provide licensed codecs for use.

[BlackStar]

1. In contradiction to their claim about not incuding "these plug-ins" in the default distribution because of their closed nature, we find, as perfectly expected, VLC in the universe repository. Both VLC and FFmpeg are free and open source software.

Completely irrelevant. Canonical is saying that it cannot include the Fluendo plugins into a default installation because they are not free software.

FFmpeg is open source but potentially patent-encumbered software, according to http://ffmpeg.org/legal.html. This is not really a problem to you as a private user (i.e. you can install and use FFmpeg and noone is likely to come after you), but it is a problem for Canonical if it decided to include patented formats in its default installation. They are offering you the only solution they can: you get to pick which decoders to install.

[yotambien]

ModplanMan, you provided the wrong link and quoted a couple of sentences without the appropiate context. A less misleading view is found in

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components

"universe" component

The universe component is a snapshot of the free, open source, and Linux world. In universe you can find almost every piece of open source software, and software available under a variety of less open licences, all built automatically from a variety of public sources.

Compared the above definition with that of "multiverse":

"multiverse" component

The "multiverse" component contains software that is "not free", which mean the licensing requirements of this software do not meet the Ubuntu "main" Component License Policy.

Where a package ends up into depends not only on the license, but on the degree of support the Ubuntu team is prepared to provide. But the technicalities and policies of Ubuntu repositories don't actually matter. The license of FFmpeg is available for you, the Ubuntu maintainers and the Canonical marketing department to read and study.

The availability of free codecs is absolutely relevant, BlackStar, and their inclusion in the right repository demonstrates that the Ubuntu team knows what belongs where, despite what Fluendo's ad wants you to believe. The Fluendo codec pack entry from Canonical's shop is an excellent funambulism show. Again:

This product contains plug-ins which allow you to play certain proprietary audio and video formats. These plug-ins are not included in the default Ubuntu distribution because they are not free software. Ubuntu is driven by strong support for the principles of free and open source software, and these principles govern what we can and will include in Ubuntu. However, we recognise the common need for plug-ins such as these, and offer them here to provide a safe and legal way for our users to play back video and audio in the formats they wish.

It cleverly starts by reminding you that these audio and video formats are proprietary. That surely sounds bad, although in their best interests they don't try to explain what this means and what restrictions are associated with the use of these proprietary codecs. It then goes on by playing a filthy trick when it says "These plug-ins are not incuded in the default Ubuntu distribution because they are not free software". Now, "these plug-ins" means Fluendo's codecs, and the sentence is strictly true: they are not free software and there's no way they could be included in Ubuntu without paying Fluendo S.A. a good chunk of money. However, the mind of the reader will identify "these plug-ins" with the codecs required "to play certain proprietary audio and video formats" mentioned right at the end of the very previous sentence. Of course, not giving notice of the existence of free codecs gives the view that these plug-ins are an absolute necessity for playback of proprietary formats. Too bad they are closed source and can not be included in the default distribution. Now, I am a faithful Ubuntu follower and I expect my beloved distribution to inform me accurately about my choices. Surely if there was any alternative I would be promptly informed, wouldn't I? The next sentence reassures me in my trust on Ubuntu and its values: "Ubuntu is driven by strong support for the principles of free and open source software, and these principles govern what we can and will incude in Ubuntu". So what I, a law abiding individual, can do in these circumstances? Well, good news because "[Ubuntu] recognise the common need for plug-ins such as these, and offer them here to provide a safe and legal way [...] to play back video and audio in the format [users] wish". Excellent! I would not want to, you know, go to jail for watching a movie. I will gladly pay ?25 to avoid it. Actually, give me two.

Yes, this is an example of scaremongering and fine threading at its finest. As you see, nowhere does it say that "using unlicensed codecs may be illegal". It clearly implies that this is the case, it relates proprietary formats with software licenses, it avoids any explanation as to what the implications are regarding the use of these codecs, it completely ignores the existence of different jurisdictions, it does not name a single alternative despite having them in the repositories, and it tries to induce fear in the user by playing big words such as "safe" and "legal" (safe from what? from dying of cancer? from rational analysis? from ethical advertising standards?).

The worst part is not that they are trying to get my 25 quid, but that they are misinforming users, who after reading this bullshit will be convinced that watching a movie in Linux is illegal, embracing the mindset the likes of the MPEG-LA wish to impose.

[Remco]

To be fair, I don't think this was done on purpose. They just don't want to scare people away with details. And that they don't want to mention ffmpeg is not too surprising either, because it surely is illegal to distribute or use it in at least the USA and some countries in Europe.

The best way to improve this text, would be to have an Ubuntu International cd for countries where MPEG patents don't exist. Then, the actual text could be made more clear, without getting caught up in the details.

You could start by saying that popular media formats are covered by patents in [complete list of countries]. Then say that if you are in one of these countries, you can buy the fluendo codecs. And then mention in bold that people in other countries won't have to buy the codecs, because Ubuntu will support these media formats out of the box.

[BlackStar]

Yotambien, your point would have been valid if Ubuntu didn't install those very alternatives automatically. Open a h.264 video on Totem or a mp3 stream on Rhythmbox and Ubuntu prompts you to install the necessary, free, gstreamer-based codecs (notifying you of the legal uncertainty, as they ought to.)

Your average user will never encounter the Fluendo codecs.

PS: Michael, can you *please* get rid of this 1' edit window? It is aggravating to the extreme.

[yotambien]

I get both your points and, as always, nothing is black or white. I'm not implying any sort of conspiracy here, just pointing out the usual inaccuracies of advertising language. Actually, what Remco mentions is pretty close to what I suggested a couple of posts above to raise awareness of software patents among the populace (or at least the small part of it that uses Linux : ).

With this in mind, I don't want to imply that Canonical as a whole is behind an operation to destroy FFmpeg and sell a copy of Fluendo's codecs for each Ubuntu download. But if we are talking about Fluendo's codec pack, I judge Canonical with regards to this issue and only this issue. OK, perhaps I entered 'serious mode' and it seemed I was campaigning for a blood bath. I love that Ubuntu asks users to download the required codecs when needed, including a legal warning.