Multimedia Codecs and Moral Quandaries
I wrote recently about legal concerns involving multimedia patents on Ubuntu, and how to obtain licensed codecs without breaking the law. But I didn’t give much thought to the philosophical side of the issue. That’s an important topic in the Ubuntu community, so I’m catching up with it here.
The incorporation of proprietary software into Ubuntu has long been a touchy issue. Even where legal ambiguities are not in play–as in the case of closed-source video drivers or Adobe’s flash plugin–there are those who object to the use of proprietary software in any form, even if it’s the only reasonable way to achieve vital functionality.
Fortunately, those voices are few and far between these days (either that, or they’ve moved onto other, “Freer” distributions), and Ubuntu developers are able to place pragmatism before philosophy when it comes to putting proprietary hardware drivers and other essential closed-source software in the Ubuntu repositories.
The Argument for Ogg
Patented multimedia codecs, however, are a little different from proprietary drivers and firmware, for reasons discussed in my first post on the topic. There are people–for example, a commenter on a previous post named markit–who remain passionately opposed to the use of restrictively licensed codecs and can make well reasoned arguments to support their stance, particularly since fully functional GPL-friendly equivalents are available for multimedia codecs.
The arguments against the use of patented codecs are not without merit. By using formats like MP3 and MPEG-2 rather than GPL’d alternatives, users perpetuate dependence on proprietary software, which is antithetical to the Ubuntu philosophy.
The obvious response to such arguments, of course, is that while it would be nice to use only patent-free codecs, that’s not a realistic goal for most people. You can’t send .ogg files to Windows users and expect them to know how to open them, and you won’t have many friends if you refuse to accept data in non-free formats.
Fluendo’s take
I was interested in the opinion of Fluendo’s employees on this topic, since they sell patented multimedia codecs to Linux users while affirming their commitment to free software. In other words, their company, which describes itself as committed to software freedom “without renouncing the model of a profitable and attractive business,” straddles the awkward line between advancing open-source development while recognizing the inevitable need of many users for proprietary software.
When I asked Viktor Nordstrom, a member of Fluendo’s corporate sales team, for his take on the use of patented codecs on open-source operating systems, his response centered around the practical inevitability of such software. “It’s not about opinion,” he said. “It’s the truth of the matter.”
Viktor and I went on to discuss whether the sale of patented multimedia codecs to Linux users–which is Fluendo’s chief product–perpetuates dependence on non-free formats and countervails the cause of software freedom. Viktor’s response again centered on the pragmatic middle line, emphasizing that the company’s aim is to provide an answer to a problem that can’t be avoided for many Linux users. “We believe we have found a solution that respects open-source,” he said.
The bottom line
Ultimately, the multimedia-codec question, like the other great imponderables of our age (e.g.: “When did time begin?” “Where does space end?” “Is Richard Stallman’s craigslist personal real?”), has no perfect answer. The Ubuntu community will likely never be in agreement on the issue.
But for my money, the current system is about as good as it gets. Ubuntu ships only with GPL-compatible codecs by default, but makes it easy (in most cases) to download patented codecs if a user needs them to play a file. It wouldn’t hurt to make it clearer to users that there are legal alternatives, like those sold by Fluendo, to the gstreamer-ugly plugins available in the Ubuntu repositories. But from a philosophical perspective, Canonical’s coping the best it can with an imperfect world.
“By using formats like MP3 and MPEG-2 rather than GPL’d alternatives, users perpetuate dependence on proprietary software”
Like LAME? Anyway, the MP3 patents that haven’t yet expired will expire within a few years.
“which is antithetical to the Ubuntu philosophy.”
It’s not antithetical to *my* philosophy.
“You can’t send .ogg files to Windows users and expect them to know how to open them”
or play them on your car stereo, or your mp3 player, …
Would you please clarify which codecs are legal and which are not?
For example if I enable the multiverse repository and do an:
sudo apt-get install gstreamer0.10-pitfdll gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse
Which are not legal? Can I legally install .mp3 codecs?
I am pretty sure that it is not legal (in the US) to do:
sudo apt-get install libdvdread4 amp;amp;
sudo /usr/share/doc/libdvdread4/install-css.sh
for DVDs.
If I purchase codecs from fluendo (via the Ubuntu app store) for about $40USD, am I then good to go with all codecs (even DVD) or are there still legal gaps?
Are all the codecs in medibuntu illegal?
If I wanted to have a completely legal ubuntu installation, what codecs could I include?
Myself I dual boot between Ubuntu and Windows 7. Both OSes are good. Ubuntu gives me the freedom I want, Windows 7 allows me to play multi-media files and games. I would purchase Ubuntu on DVD if it included codecs for all multi-media including Blu-Ray disc. It is time to get into the modern era. People complain about what the default color scheme should be. How about getting the OS to really compete with Microsoft and Apple?
Did you purchase windows 7 with all the codecs installed? Doubtful even in an oem install. Sure its easier to get legal codecs for windows, But it does not come with all of them. Blueray for Linux is a pipe dream, no drm hence no Blueray.
I’m shocked by the lack of understanding of the Free Software principles, and that no software is “vital” more than keeping you FREE.
The real problem is that “proprietary” software, with software patents, are taking the right of every human in the planet. This is a thief against humanity.
Patents are here to promote innovation, not to gain exclusive rights and monopolies upon abstract mathematics of information manipulation. No software or mathematics has to be patented, NEVER.
Multimedia formats are based upon abstract transformation principles, and patent holders forbid everyone else to use those same principles. Proprietary, monopolistic vendors do the rest forcing people to use those traps. Is like publisher decide to print books that can only be read with some “proprietary, patented looking glasses”, and you can’t build ones yourself legally, and they decide to who sell them and at what price.
Help Free Software, help fight sw patents, not say that you have a “pragmatic” view, is just a defective view that push you deeper and deeper in the pit.
Fluendo wouldn’t be such a bad option, except that they charge so damn much for the codecs they sell. If they really believe in open source and view patents as a problem to be worked around, why do they charge more for their codecs than you’d expect to pay for an OEM Windows license, which presumably comes with rights to all the same codecs.
Whether or not Fluendo has a valid rationale for this, it dovetails very nicely with Microsoft’s strategy on Linux, which is to let it exist as long as it is not free as in beer. As it stands, MS has been extremely successful with this. Most linux users still are paying for Windows with their computers. Linux is almost always the more expensive proposition. Works for hardcore freedom types, but not so much for the free beer folks.
[…] from many people who want Google to set its new codec free? Or use Ogg Theora in YouTube? As this new post emphasises, this is a top issue when it comes to Free software and patents. GNU/Linux depends on […]
You are correct that my purchased OEM of Windows 7 did not come with all the codecs. However, the purchase of the PC came with applications from vendors who supplied all the codecs. They even included driver CDs if I ever need to reinstall.
That’s why I said I would purchase a copy of Ubuntu (on CD or DVD) if they supplied codecs making it legal in the U.S. The fee can be used for having the ability to play MP3s, MOV, and other formats. And if someone doesn’t feel that is right, they can still download the free version of Ubuntu without getting the codecs.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Linux. I use Ubuntu at home on a separate partition and on my computer at work. I don’t have a problem purchasing an OS if I could get everything in one package.
I agree @markit that patents are an artificial social contract that should make it that innovation is both made available by the inventor and that the inventor is simultaneously recognized. Unfortunately to live with patents we have to live with the abuse that comes from holders of patents and the rest of us in general, its life. Free software has its place to moderate bad behavior that could cause the aforementioned problem. Its hard to think that licensing a codec could cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for our FOSS software companies, while the cost to users (considering a billion computers out there) is tens or hundreds of dollars. These amounts are a fortune for the average user based on per capita global income, and the number of pieces of software that make up a computer. That is where free software comes in to the rescue, to balance out the ways and means so everyone can benefit from the best of both worlds, availability and cost. I guess its up to us to put our foot (collective feet) down to encourage more people to recognize the benefits of free software.
I once just played dumb and made this lady use OpenOffice and she kept praising it and really thought it was the latest MS Office. You should have seen the look on her face when I told her she could download it for free from the web site of a reputable software company — she thought I was into something rather dubious — but nevertheless she downloaded it rather than spend all kinds of money on boxed software.
Actually you can listen to .ogg files on an MP3 Player and car stereo, if they support them. My Sansa Clip+ supports .ogg, and I listen to it all the time in my car. Your car doesn’t even need to support .ogg, if you use the AUX jack on your car stereo.
As a believer in free software I am curious how this free thing is supposed to work. Are we talking free beer here. If an enterprising programmer comes up with a nifty codec and places it under GPL, then charges users that want to acquire source code or otherwise requires licensing for distribution or use, would this run afoul of the GPL.
I guess the question I am really asking is that if you need to pay for software doesn’t that requirement take away from at least one of Stallman’s four freedoms — preconditions for free software — because you are required to stop and ask for permission. Here I am using payment as an example, and I dare to extend this premise to click through agreements and shrink wrap that bind you to terms of use including GPL licenses.
Its a strange philosophical area because my idea of freedom is unencumbered without limit, while liberty is bound by definition in law, rules or norms in a way that appears to be freedom except that every (from a ethical piont of view) freedom has a corresponding responsibility while liberty by definition does not. So why do we have a license that grants freedom only when we consent to exercising that freedom? Why do we have a license that takes away all the freedoms if we do not consent to excercising any one freedom? Does the philosophy behind GPL (or other free software licenses) create unintended consequences in real life? Which is freer public domain, BSD, GPL or other free licenses? Am not going to even go into questions of economics of social consequences because its a whole can of worms.
I am sure there are lots of questions to be asked. By thinking about what people out there are really saying, and discussing or otherwise addressing the problems (not necessarily to seek a middle ground) I believe we can help improve free software.