Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
Thank you very much for your replies to my concern. However I'd like to comment on some of them until the thread dies acknowledged and forgotten... Daniel Baumann: It's not actually dead, but in a kryogenic freeze. [...] Thanks for your answer. I hope you don't mind if I take over (active) maintainership for all those packages in the meantime... ;) Moritz Muehlenhoff: We should just create a separate archive like non-us, e.g. non-pat, which's primary host would reside somewhere where multimedia software patents are moot. (I suppose france would be alright, since debian- multimedia is hosted there). d-i should offer to add these sources. Yes, we will need a separate archive for these packages which will be hosted outside the US. I am not sure if d-i should offer to add these sources (not sure if it's worth another question during installation), but the URI could be included in the default sources.list but commented out with a disclaimer. Reinhard Tartler: How about just using non-free for that? In the past, patented packages like gif encoders have been hosted there, so why can't we just use them for mpeg encoders as well? I don't think that non-free ist the right place, beacuse (a) the non-free archive is hosted on nearly every mirror, even in the US and (b) the software isn't non-free. It's perfectly free from a license POV. As Clint Adams suggested I also think you're thinking of non-us. Joe Smith: Please note though that non-us was hosted outside of the US, but was supposed to contain packages that were legal in the US, but simply could not be exported from the US (cypto software). Because of its name, people started putting other things there were not legal in the US, but that is very different than its original purpose. This need to be avoided! I suggest that, if such a repository will be created for patented codecs, that e.g. sponsored uploads will not be allowed to this archive. I know that most of you will hate this idea, but I believe it is necessary to keep the original purpose of such an archive. Nice greetings, Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:15:42 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Yes, we will need a separate archive for these packages which will be hosted outside the US. I am not sure if d-i should offer to add these sources (not sure if it's worth another question during installation), but the URI could be included in the default sources.list but commented out with a disclaimer. I don't see why users in countries where software is not patentable should be forced to jump through hoops to get access to multimedia software. If this repository is not added to the user's sources.list file by default then there is no advantage in setting up yet another repository for such software. I think the Debian project needs to seek legal advice on the subject. We need to know who actually becomes liable for patent infringement if we set up a repository in a country where software cannot be patented. I would guess the answer would be anyone who distributes the software; therefore it would be up to each mirror to decide whether to mirror this archive. If this is the case, and if end users are not liable for downloading patentable software, then I don't see why d-i can't enable the source by default. -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:15:42AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
[...]
I suggest that, if such a repository will be created for patented
codecs, that e.g. sponsored uploads will not be allowed to this
archive. I know that most of you will hate this idea, but I
believe it is necessary to keep the original purpose of such an
archive.
As a sponsoree myself, I'm not entirely certain I understand why
it's any more likely that a sponsoring DD will overlook and upload a
package with the wrong section, than that a DD will upload a
similarly incorrect package he or she directly maintains. And either
way, wouldn't verifying that a package is appropriate for some new
patent-problems section fall on the ftpmasters and their delegates
to police? And further, if this became canonized in policy as a must
or required directive, wouldn't such a problem warrant a bug of
severity serious, potentially release-critical even?
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP([EMAIL PROTECTED]); IRC([EMAIL PROTECTED]); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
MUD([EMAIL PROTECTED]:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:44:30PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:15:42AM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: [...] I suggest that, if such a repository will be created for patented codecs, that e.g. sponsored uploads will not be allowed to this archive. I know that most of you will hate this idea, but I believe it is necessary to keep the original purpose of such an archive. As a sponsoree myself, I'm not entirely certain I understand why it's any more likely that a sponsoring DD will overlook and upload a package with the wrong section, than that a DD will upload a similarly incorrect package he or she directly maintains. And either way, wouldn't verifying that a package is appropriate for some new patent-problems section fall on the ftpmasters and their delegates to police? And further, if this became canonized in policy as a must or required directive, wouldn't such a problem warrant a bug of severity serious, potentially release-critical even? Here's an idea. Would it be useful to translate the legal issues of a package into a technical one by marking packages with one of these package tags: - Patent_issue: yes/no Patent_issue: de,us,... - Thus whoever uploads it, it will be followed more closely and similary would such a tag be useful to aptitude/dpkg so as to signal upgrades that may contain patent or similar issues. I would expect the user to set a location setting in dpkg so that the messages would be a warning in certain locales and informational in others. This of course then leads to who will make the determination? (-legal,ftpmasters,DD) There is also P-A-S which is not maintained by DD but my ftpmaster,iirc. This may be a similar situation. And the issues of how often it will be reviewed to keep up with legal issues? And since all distros have these issues, maybe a joint effort to maintain a legal issue list. -K -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org | |join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! | |___ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed ___| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
[This is a thread that I posted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] this morning and that
led to a small discussion between Loic Minier and myself, see
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2007-October/000506.html
. I have attached Loic's first answer to this post, making it a rather
long but hopefully interesting reading. However, I think it's better to
discuss this topic with a broader audience.]
Dear Debian developers (and interested readers),
I'd like to discuss an issue with you that concerns me for a while now.
I will be happy to read all of your opinions and suggestions!
You all know about the unsatisfying situation of some codec libraries
that are commonly called 'risky' or 'patented'; namely lame, xvid and
friends. While being perfectly free software on the one hand, licensed
under the GPL or LGPL, they are surrounded by a cloud of patent FUD or
even actual threat, which makes them unsuitable for Debian's main
section [0]. Nevertheless on the user's side there is a demand for those
codecs which can be whitnessed by the broad acceptance of unofficial
repositories [see: http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_inst ].
Furthermore, there is nothing that might hold users back from using this
software in Europe, because IIRC software patents do not exist on this
continent.
With a basic set of libraries (e.g. lame, faac, xvid, x264) at least the
following packages in Debian (I guess there are lots more) could be
extended in their features: ffmpeg, gstreamer0.10-plugins-{bad,ugly},
libquicktime, etc. Some of these packages are already prepared for
inclusion of those codecs, e.g. if you compile ffmpeg with
'DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=risky' set or set some 'EXTRA_PLUGINS' in the
gstreamer packages, you'll be awarded with enhanced features. While on
the one hand it's nice to find such preparations in existing packages,
there are still at least two defiencies left: (1) There is no
consistency among these methods. (2) We do not make the needed codec
libraries available, we do not even explain why we don't.
My suggestions:
(@2) We are already maintaining libdvdcss2 and x264 (which are definite
candidates for maybe-illegal-in-some-countries) in our SVN and I think
we should consider maintaining the other mentioned libraries (at least
lame, faac and xvid), too [1]. I am not talking about uploading them to
Debian, but at least making them available for compilation and packaging
on the user's own computer [2]. Of course, Debian will not officially
support this and it should be made clear to the user that what she is
doing might be illegal in her country, etc.
(@1) We should try to introduce a Debian-wide standard for the affected
packages and maybe even mark them e.g. in the package description, so
the user knows: If I compile this package with [e.g.]
'DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=risky' set, I will get a feature-enhanced version of
the software. I will need additional library packages, but I can compile
them myself from the sources and the Debian packaging found at the
pkg-multimedia SVN. Packages built this way will have the smallest
possible interdiff with their 'official' counterparts [3]. Again, it
should be made clear to the user that what she is doing is absolutely
unsupported by Debian and not recommended by the maintainers and may be
illegal in her country, etc.
What do you think? Is it worth the effort?
Please share your thoughts with me!
Cheers,
Fabian
[0] Of course we should motivate people to use free and open formats for
their media, e.g. OGG Vorbis, and I am strictly for it. But sadly the
world isn't that perfect and your $20 MP3-player supports nothing but
MP3 and your DVD-Player will play XVID but not Theora, etc...
[1] Similar effort has been put into the debian-unofficial.org project
which has been founded by Daniel Baumann in 2005 but has recently lost
priority (well, it died) because of his involvement in the Debian Live
project (Well, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I consider Debian Live a
great project, it's just a pity for d-u.o). Debian packaging can be
found at http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/restricted/dists/trunk/ and may give
a good starting point.
[2] I know there is already Chrstian Marillat's unofficial repository at
www.debian-multimedia.org, where you can download binary packages for
those codecs, but this situation is also suboptimal and I have some
personal objections with it: First of all it is not a team-maintained
project, but a one-man-show (well, maybe two-man). The packaging style
differs very much from the 'official' counterparts in Debian; take
ffmpeg or the gstreamer packages as examples. Also many of the packages
are not up to the quality standards that Debian imposes (e.g. have a
look at some of the debian/copyright files). Last but not least there is
this 'unofficial', nearly 'amateurish' taste of this repository; e.g.
the homepage does not even look remotely Debian-related. [Christian, if
you read
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 08:11:13PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: How about just using non-free for that? In the past, patented packages like gif encoders have been hosted there, so why can't we just use them for mpeg encoders as well? I think you're thinking of non-us. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fabian Greffrath wrote: You all know about the unsatisfying situation of some codec libraries that are commonly called 'risky' or 'patented'; namely lame, xvid and friends. While being perfectly free software on the one hand, licensed under the GPL or LGPL, they are surrounded by a cloud of patent FUD or even actual threat, which makes them unsuitable for Debian's main section [0]. [...] We should just create a separate archive like non-us, e.g. non-pat, which's primary host would reside somewhere where multimedia software patents are moot. (I suppose france would be alright, since debian- multimedia is hosted there). d-i should offer to add these sources. How about just using non-free for that? In the past, patented packages like gif encoders have been hosted there, so why can't we just use them for mpeg encoders as well? -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
Fabian Greffrath wrote: You all know about the unsatisfying situation of some codec libraries that are commonly called 'risky' or 'patented'; namely lame, xvid and friends. While being perfectly free software on the one hand, licensed under the GPL or LGPL, they are surrounded by a cloud of patent FUD or even actual threat, which makes them unsuitable for Debian's main section [0]. Nevertheless on the user's side there is a demand for those codecs which can be whitnessed by the broad acceptance of unofficial repositories [see: http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_inst ]. Furthermore, there is nothing that might hold users back from using this software in Europe, because IIRC software patents do not exist on this continent. We should just create a separate archive like non-us, e.g. non-pat, which's primary host would reside somewhere where multimedia software patents are moot. (I suppose france would be alright, since debian- multimedia is hosted there). d-i should offer to add these sources. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
Fabian Greffrath schreef: ... Furthermore, there is nothing that might hold users back from using this software in Europe, because IIRC software patents do not exist on this continent. ... This is not entirely true. Software patents do exist in Europe, though unlike in the U.S. they're not centrally regulated for all member states. Meaning while some piece of software might be patentable in one member state it doesn't have to be so in another. Then secondly there is another case where software solves a technical problem as opposed to just a business problem which *is* regulated centrally in Europe. This latter case is described quite thoroughly in these Wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Europe and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention (the first being the shortest and least elaborate version). -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Enabling and installing of risky (patented) codecs - made easy
Fabian Greffrath wrote: Similar effort has been put into the debian-unofficial.org project which has been founded by Daniel Baumann in 2005 but has recently lost priority (well, it died) because of his involvement in the Debian Live project (Well, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I consider Debian Live a great project, it's just a pity for d-u.o). Debian packaging can be found at http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/restricted/dists/trunk/ and may give a good starting point. It's not actually dead, but in a kryogenic freeze. I'll still do some packages unofficially, at some later point (but don't count on me right now as in man-power; if you'd like to host something there, that shouldn't be a problem though). -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
