If you’re like me, you don’t put much thought into where your multimedia codecs come from: you run a quick “apt-get install gstreamer-plugins-ugly” on new installs and move on to more important things. But not everyone’s like me, and as Ubuntu moves increasingly into government and the workplace, patent and licensing issues are becoming more and more important for many Ubuntu users.
Over the next couple weeks, we’ll be writing about multimedia patents and the Ubuntu community. This first post outlines the situation and explains why multimedia patents matter more than you may think.
Linux and patents
The Linux community has a long history of shirking restrictive software patents and licenses, which should not surprise anyone. After all, at the core of the free-software movement is repulsion at the notion of having to abide by terms that users may not agree with in order to use their computers. Many people use Linux because they want to live a life unencumbered by software patents.
Reality, however, rarely lives up to perfection. Although many Ubuntu users would like to be able to rely only on software licensed under the GPL, a large number of us have to use proprietary code. From closed-source video drivers to “binary blobs” in the Linux kernel, non-GPL software is often a pragmatic necessity for getting the most out of a machine.
Why multimedia is different
Multimedia codecs, of course, differ from hardware drivers and firmware in that they’re not necessary for a computer to run to its full potential. But in a world where mp3 and DVD playback is essential for most users, patented multimedia codecs, practically speaking, are as unavoidable as the Nvidia GLX driver.
Patented codecs are also unlike other non-free software upon which many Linux users rely because they have completely GPL-compatible equivalents that work just as well. Proprietary graphics and wireless drivers are necessary because no equally functional open-source drivers exist; in contrast, the Ogg Vorbis audio codec and Ogg Theora video compressor function just as well by most measures as the proprietary codecs, such as mp3 and the mpegs, that they seek to replace.
In theory, the whole world should compress audio and video files using only free and open-source algorithms. But it doesn’t. The reality is that playback for mp3s and mpegs is as essential for most Ubuntu users as compatibility with Microsoft Office file formats in OpenOffice.
So how do you strike a compromise between perfection and reality? In the next post, we’ll take a look at the different options available for obtaining multimedia playback on Ubuntu, which for legal reasons does not come with most popular codecs installed by default, and why this issue is becoming increasingly important.
Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
Well not installing them by default to legal reasons is fine as long as they are allowed to be installed afterwards by the end user if need be. The one thing that also needs to be mentioned is if these codecs were not available for install at all how fast do you think there would be an open source variant that works just as well? In general software patents are evil and this is just another example of why.
One thing is the need for these codecs for your computer at home, another is corporate use.
When a company or government agency is deploying Ubuntu for their employees, full multimedia functionality is a essential part of the requirements. Legal codecs is the only way to go.
I agree that we often must accept proprietary formats, just to continue compatibility with the masses that use it, whether at work or home. The pattern I see coming back to me again and again is the developer’s/designer’s dilemma: to reach the maximum number of users, often the lowest common denominator of the masses proves the rule. And even if Ubuntu end users like myself support open source equivalents and alternatives, I would imagine many must come back to proprietary stuff just to keep sync with family/co-workers/friends/etc.
I would imagine most everyone knows the situation with web design and designers having to accomodate IE 5.5 at worst, 6 at best. Right now it creates havoc for blog sites that use WYSIWYG formats (which tend to be IE based): any browser that meets or comes close to W3C standards tends to have problems with formatting input.
I mentioned browsers because multimedia seems to me to be tied fairly close to browser technology, and the dilemma continues. Ogg Vorbis has worked beautifully for me (including when I still ran Windows) but I keep having to convert to .mp3 if I want users to be able to follow my podcasts and such. And tech media (such as OSNews) is buzzing about whether h264 or Theora will come out ahead right now; as Apple’s devices (certainly the iPod and iPhone but even the iPad if I may dare say so) are leading the microcomputing market right now and h264 is Apple’s codec. It’s pretty messy stuff IMHO even with current MPEG-LA reports (end users don’t have to pay a license fee *if* they use a licensed encoder for free content).
And that’s just speaking of formats that work well. I know of the legal entanglement with Adobe; but I understand many Debian-based distro users install their Flash codec because some sites using Flash won’t work with .swf. Solutions for .pdf files was a little easier for me but I had to go with xpdf instead of Document Viewer because the latter wouldn’t display some files correctly.
I know some GNU/Linux users are very passionate about staying away from the inherent traps in patent restrictions but I imagine many in our branch of the distro world are much indeed like you, Mr. Tozzi. And when I moved to Mint I was glad that the process of installing proprietary codecs was even more streamlined to the existing GUI (no messing with the CLI needed).
I’m very much looking forward to the upcoming articles.
I believe that the real issue here is neither technical nor of open Source conviction, but rather, it is a question of pure Business continuity. Using “non legal” codecs for a company in US, Canada, UK, Germany, and Japan, potentially can create a problem of the company going out of bussines due to the protection of IP in those countries.
The best answer IMHO rests with active, patient freedom-loving users.
(1) Stick together and refuse to produce or consume media in patent-encumbered formats.
(2) Write thoughtful, positive letters to your representatives asking that they pass legislation requiring government media to conform to open, patent-free standards.
(3) Write thoughtful, positive letters to major media companies asking them to support open Ogg formats with HTML5.
Never show sarcasm or arrogance; just clearly and factually state your position. It’s our culture; don’t give it up to Corporate control without a fight.
Software Patents are really really wrong. In this case they are even worse, since let someone have exclusive rights upon a format (that you can’t read/play without violating some obscure vague patent).
You can produce GPL alternatives, but since mathematics and physics involved in codecs are general concept, and they have been patented, you can’t produce code that plays that format and don’t infringe their patent. How incredible wrong is it? How can people tolerate this thing? How can they talk about “legal codecs”? THEY are illegal, because they hurt the whole society, while GPL code does not. Stop hurt humanity for the advantage of few! Stop Software Patents!
For Europeans: http://petition.stopsoftwarepatents.eu/
[...] free operating system. Works With U, a Web site which is focused on Ubuntu, has just published this short essay about the harms of software patents when it comes to GNU/Linux. Patented codecs are also unlike [...]
Let’s clear something up. Some items are not legal for redistribution by software vendors due to their licensing. It does not make end-users (individuals or otherwise) criminals if they install and use Adobe Flash, Real Player, Nvidia drivers, etc on their own computers. Please note that Windows installs without all of the third party software too!
The difference is third party software is typically easier to install in Windows. That is why I have created a script called BleedingEdge http://sourceforge.net/projects/bleedingedge/ for Ubuntu. It does the command line work of adding repositories and installing proprietary software for the average noob. My goal is to make installing third party software as easy as ‘point and click’ for my family, friends, and students and thereby remove a barrier to Linux use.
Sorry – I failed to mention in the last post that software patents are really stupid as all programs are expressions of mathematical algorithms.
So just what exactly is stopping Canonical from doing a bundle deal with Fluendo? http://www.fluendo.com/
I mean for goodness sakes Canonical didn’t think twice about removing the Gimp or signing up to Bahoo for search. Canonical also has no qualms about using Nvidia binary-blobs.
This is only an issue because Canonical have allowed it to become an issue. They’ve for some inexplicable and perplexing reason been totally unwilling to make a decision on this. The closest they’ve come is allowing Fluendo codecs to be sold in the Canonical web store.
Canonical knows what it has to do.
hi, can you please add a fovicon to your site? my Bookmarks Toolbar will appreciate. THANKS!!! love you!
When you are dealing with a Linux desktop deployment, it is hard enough to fight against MS on a functional and cultural level, to have to give them legal arguments as well…
I my employers business, is not fighting IP or making a statement against MS. They just want to offer their employees a tool that is at least equal to what he had in the past- without dealing with compliance issues.
Why not use Fluendo pack.They are a lot less expensive than windows,while retain the freedom of open source.