An excellent native support for multi-media (mp3, flac & dvd play)

[BonniesTUX]

We, as a fedora user and lover, would definitely expect native support for muti-media as mp3 and flac both are open sourced. We will also appreciate supportive libraries for playing DVDs coz playing DVD is not illegal anywhere in world.

Gome has Gnome Mplayer and KDE has Kplayer, these player should be included as native installation packages like Brasero or K3B in respective Live CD or Installer DVD.

This would probably prevent fedora user to install un-signed packages.

Thanks,
BT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are giving out something, why not to give the Best !

[JohnnyLinux]

Who's We?
I'm confused

[BonniesTUX]

timmywear

it seems like your distron is not fedora :)

[ilja]

If you pay the MP3 royalties (http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html) for all the Fedora copies, they surely can introduce this kind of solution ;) It's not about the legality or illegality. It is rather the fact, that MP3 and DVD technologies are proprietary and require a royalty payment from any commercial distributor. More info here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

[BonniesTUX]

thanks for your inputs which i never knew before.

suppose, i have couples of original music CDs from HMV and original DVDs purchased from blockbuster. until now i was able to play them nicely on Windows system before i installed fedora. In case of Windows or Mac who pays royalty to whom?

[ilja]

1) The fact, that Fedora does not deliver the support nativelly does not mean, that no-one is doing it. There is a legal way to deliver MP3 and DVD support, but just it has to be done separate from the Fedora Project (see here: http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-f11.html)

2)Microsoft and Apple are paying royalties based on the number of sold copies to the main patent holders. In case of MP3 they are written here: http://mp3licensing.com/about/ in case of DVD here: http://www.dvd6cla.com/index.html

[BonniesTUX]

i visited the link: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

MP3 encoding and decoding support is not included in any Fedora application because MP3 is heavily patented in several regions including the United States. The patent holder is unwilling to give an unrestricted patent grant, as required by the GPL.

following is the excerpt from mp3licence website:
Do I need a license to distribute mp3, mp3PRO or mp3surround encoded content?

A license is needed for commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or for use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like).

However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

By including Gnome Mplayer, Kplayer, or lib-lame, libmad or libflac natively in fedora distribution do not engage fedora or any fedora user in any commercial revenue generating activities like broadcast or, streaming applications, or audio-on-demand applications.

However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

So can anyone tell me how much revenue fedora is generating annually?

[ilja]

MP3 encoding and decoding support is not included in any Fedora application because MP3 is heavily patented in several regions including the United States. The patent holder is unwilling to give an unrestricted patent grant, as required by the GPL.

I suppose it is mainly not about the royalties, but about the comparability with the GPL, which Fedora is very strictly following. If you don't agree with this political decision, you should change the distribution. And I don't mean it in a non-nice way. There are other distribution, which are not that strict about non-GPL software and you will run into this problem more often.

[BonniesTUX]

it's not all about changing my distribution coz I LUV fedora.
it's all about adding more spice to fedora which legally and politically can be done so easily.

Lame is an open source, then why fedora is promoting fluendo on web-site?
Flac is also an open source
while ogg is not 100% GNU-GPL.

[ilja]

As far as I understand the decision structure, it was suggested by the legal department of RedHat. I suppose they know what they are saying. Otherwise you should have the discussion not with the users (for whom Fedoraforum, which is privately owned, is made), but rather with the developers. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate But be prepared for a very short and maybe a bit rude answer, because you will not be the first one to ask the questions as it is answered frequently. Have a special look at this list and its archives :fedora-legal-list - For public discussions about legal issues affecting Fedora.

[stevea]

So can anyone tell me how much revenue fedora is generating annually?

Essentially zero$$ for the Fedora project, but Fedora is sponsored by RedHat w/ revenues around $720Mill

Also wrt to Ogg - it is NOT required that a project use GPL to be included in Fedora, it just has to be open source w/ a compatible license and certain other reqs.

For example X11 that supports 100% of the GUIs is NOT GPL. It uses an MIT-style license that is compatible (at least through the glibc LGPL layer). Perhaps you are unaware but Fedora and most of Linux got rid of Xfree's X11 and replaced it w/ Xorg/X11 b/c they added licence terms that required certain "advertizing" clauses. At least that's my recollection.

The point is that you can get and use all the source for all of Fedora (well aside fro a few firmware bits). Each piece has a licence with some terms, but none (we hope) infringes on a patent or requires some onerous copyright license issue.

If Fedora paid some license fee for MP3 for example, then they (RH) might be able to give you a working copy of an MP3 player for free, BUT you would not be allowed to take the source, muck around w/ it and give it away or sell it to others. It breaks the model.

[BonniesTUX]

I guess Red-Hat is a commercial distribution generating revenue might have some legal complexity, but fedora is not a commercial distribution. There should not be any problem for fedora for including lib-lame, lib-flac or lib-mad natively into distribution.

I have also gone through DVD6C Patent Pool website, licensing terms are in-line with mp3 for manufacturers not for end-users.

As you said "Otherwise you should have the discussion not with the users,..."

-Most of the useres believe what is stated on fedora site as a fact, while real fact seems little-bit different than what is stated, so users must be aware of what is going on.

for this i may grant you permission for banning me, if you wish.

[BonniesTUX]

i initiate this post because i felt my TUX and fedora is missing something, otherwise its feel like distributing fedora is making propaganda to promote commercially available Operating Systems like Windows and Mac.

In terms of possible features TUX must not be lagging behind.

neway thanking you all of you guys without any personal bias for exchanging views.

[ilja]

But it does not miss those features. Just enable the repository, which contain them and 5 seconds afterwards you'll have them. I still don't see your point.

And thank you for granting me the permission to ban you. Maybe I will use it eventually :D

[stevea]

I guess Red-Hat is a commercial distribution generating revenue might have some legal complexity, but fedora is not a commercial distribution.

Yoohoo - A Linux distro IS NOT a legal entity. RH owns the Fedora name and logo and is a "primary sponsor". It would be a mess in court if Fedora was involved in patent infringement and yes RH would be implicated. It would appear that RH was attempting to side-step the license by creating a zero dollar "project" then using the "low budget" clause of the license. That argument would never fly.

I have also gone through DVD6C Patent Pool website, licensing terms are in-line with mp3 for manufacturers not for end-users.

You're missing the point. Even if RH/Fedora could give you a license to use, the source is encumbered by a patent license, so you cannot revise or resell the software. Current you can (by following the modest license requirements) get, modify and sell any code that exists in Fedora. You can't do that with an MP3 codec. Fedora code is unencumbered in this way.

Let's consider a real-world example. Some nettop mfgr decides they want to put Fedora on their unit. Or as a consultant I delivered systems running Fedora a few times, What are we supposed to do - read through 3500 package licenses and verify that we meet all the special license conditions ? This isn't a Fedora specific problem, Wind River Systems vends Linux for embedded and they have a long list of packages and their respective licenses - this is very important for their customers.

Sorry - but if you want these packages which carry a "$0 for end user only" clause - then go load them yourself. Most of what you want is in freshrpms anyway, so it's mindlessly easy.

[JN4OldSchool]

Bee? Is that you?

So can anyone tell me how much revenue fedora is generating annually?

No.

Can you tell me how much you paod for Fedora?

There are other distros that do offer what you want. I know...You like Fedora... <sigh> It all boils down to user choice. Fedora is not going under, it is not losing users, it will not go out of business. It is a choice, just as simple as that. It is not perfect. Take it or leave it. Tux will be just fine, he has gotten by very well for over 15 years now! It is the new users coming on board that worry me! :)

[bob]

Fedora long ago made the decision to be FOSS and it's core to the distro. Many users support Fedora for just that reason. If you want the extra codecs, then there's a ton of different sites that give you directions or a simple tool to add them. No big deal, and it's at least as easy as any other distro.

Now, you COULD have gone directly to the FedoraProject site (click the Jump above) and read all about it, then posted your comments to the devs. You've certainly taken more than that time to ask the questions here.

A more productive use of your time would be solving Global Warming, obtaining World Peace and untangling fishing lines :D. Good luck!

[sonoran]

Bee? Is that you?

We sure do think alike. :eek:

He might be able to restrain himself, but not a single smilie? Naw.

[JohnnyLinux]

timmywear

it seems like your distron is not fedora :)

When I asked, We?
I meant that you are assuming a lot of things. For one you are saying that WE should not have a FREE distro (as in freedom).

That's all I'm saying. I don't think you like Fedora more than anyone here. We all like Fedora that's why we're here.

[BonniesTUX]

folks

ask yourself how many of you suggest me to enable other rep, like fresh rpm?
ask yourself how many of you already enjoying mp3 or videos in fedora?

[JN4OldSchool]

folks

ask yourself how many of you suggest me to enable other rep, like fresh rpm?
ask yourself how many of you already enjoying mp3 or videos in fedora?

er...I think EVERYONE will suggest that you enable the freshrpm repo because that is the way you get these codecs.

I think everyone who wants is enjoying mp3 and videos in Fedora.

This concept is really very very easy, I simply do not see your hangup.

[stefan1975]

personally i would go with RPMFUSION instead, since that is the defacto standard repo for patent emcumbered stuff these days. it can even be enabled at install time and when it is enabled the fedora media players recognize it and pull in codecs automagically. So what is the big deal? how much easier does it have to be? in ubuntu you also have to manually apt-get the restricted-codecs or so. fedora is FOSS and it is a stance i respect. Arch for example throws anything in the repos that can be compiled for linux no matter the license. meat or fish? take your pick. there is a flavor for all.

love fedora? it is just a distro. not a woman. it is an OS that is used to get things done. not having any function per se other then allowing apps to be started that get productive work done. i never understood these emotional count-down-to-randy-rhino people anyway.

[JN4OldSchool]

personally i would go with RPMFUSION instead, since that is the defacto standard repo for patent emcumbered stuff these days. it can even be enabled at install time and when it is enabled the fedora media players recognize it and pull in codecs automagically. So what is the big deal? how much easier does it have to be? in ubuntu you also have to manually apt-get the restricted-codecs or so. fedora is FOSS and it is a stance i respect. Arch for example throws anything in the repos that can be compiled for linux no matter the license. meat or fish? take your pick. there is a flavor for all.

love fedora? it is just a distro. not a woman. it is an OS that is used to get things done. not having any function per se other then allowing apps to be started that get productive work done. i never understood these emotional count-down-to-randy-rhino people anyway.

Correct! My bad, I was just copying what he had written, but yeah, rpmfusion is where you want to go.

[JohnnyLinux]

folks

ask yourself how many of you suggest me to enable other rep, like fresh rpm?
ask yourself how many of you already enjoying mp3 or videos in fedora?

Man, I don't even know what the hell this thread is about anymore.
We all download the codecs. We all listen to Music. We all watch movies. We all needed to enable RPMFusion.

So are your questions, If we do this anyway, why not have it by default?

[scottro]

I don't love Fedora, we're just good friends. That video is a fake.

Seriously, Stefan makes a very important point. Today, on Distrowatch, after the weekly news, the folks are getting in fights, with language that would get censored on this forum, about which distro is better.

In theory at least, the O/S is simpy a basis upon which to run your applications.

Various proprietary codecs can't be included in Fedora for legal reasons. You can't play an ogg file on a vanilla Windows 7 either.

[LBCoder]

There is a lot more to the whole revenue-generating issue....
if you think of Fedora as the development and/or loyalty generating branch of RH.

The question is... "does Fedora generate revenue?"
In order to answer that question, you have to consider what RHEL would look like if there was no Fedora.

1) It is a development platform for new experimental and/or dangerous software. It gives RH a great flexibility for testing new things without screwing over their enterprise customers. Without Fedora, RHEL (and the entire Linux ecosystem for that matter) would be in a more primitive state.
2) Familiarity with Fedora is familiarity with RHEL. It is the same way of doing things. People who get used to Fedora are more likely to push RHEL for enterprise needs. How much of RHEL revenue can be tied directly to Fedora? Probably a considerable amount. This is called VIRAL MARKETING.

So though Fedora may not generate revenue directly, it most certainly DOES generate revenue, which means that outside of the "compatible license" argument, distribution of mp3/dvd/etc. WOULD require royalty payments.

[AdamW]

bonniestux: the legal situation is quite clear-cut. We don't have to worry about the 'private use' and '$100,000 limit' things, because it's essentially irrelevant.

For anything patented to be used in an open source piece of software (no matter which open source license - this applies to BSD-style as much as GPL-style licenses), the patent holder must have granted the software a license which allows redistribution under terms at least as generous as the license.

That disallows MP3, because the allowances made by the patent holder are not generous enough to be compatible with _any_ open source license. Yes, you could argue the Fedora project is 'non-commercial' - _but_ that's not the point. Fedora as a whole, and any MP3-decoding software we could include in it, are licensed under open source licenses, which require that the software be distributable to _anyone_. Therefore we can't include something that has this kind of patent restriction, because it produces a fundamental conflict between the software license and the patent grant. The software license says the software must be available to anyone: the patent license says it must _not_ be available to anyone who wants to use it for commercial use. That's an unreconcilable conflict.

The summary is simple: for any patented mechanism to be distributable under an open source license in any country where the patent is valid, the patent holder must grant that piece of software a very generous license, which is not the case here.