Open Source, Real Media Mega-player? 362
chill writes "CNN is reporting "RealNetworks on Monday will unveil a new open source version of its streaming media software that supports multiple file formats for audio and video, including those that use Microsoft's Windows Media technology." and "RealNetworks did not formally license the ability to offer Windows Media software, but instead re-created the technology based on data streams sent between the server and player software, The New York Times reported. A Microsoft representative told the newspaper that the company would need to determine whether RealNetworks licensed the software before taking action. " I can't wait to see the actual license." Update: 07/22 19:10 GMT by T : The software can be downloaded from the Helix site, if you're interested.
I hate (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hate (Score:3, Interesting)
Ditto. Though I'm not entirely sure that I'm going to like what Real is planning on doing.
I find Real's software (Jukebox, Realplayer) to be very annoying in that it registers itself in the [Windows] taskbar more persistently than another software I've seen and that it's also very persistent about ensuring that you register the product. Besides that, the display of the player is riddled with advertisements by default. And the new RealOne thing they have going on turned me away from the company for good, I think.
Re:I hate (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hate (Score:3, Insightful)
"REALNETWORKS, INC.
"END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
"REALNETWORKS PRODUCTS
"REDISTRIBUTION NOT PERMITTED"
Yeah, whatever. But your crap ain't go'n on my PC under those terms, buddy!
So, how soon before we see a spy-ware free, non-self-"updating" version?
Re:I hate (Score:2)
Reverse engineered? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Reverse engineered? DMCA? (Score:2, Informative)
* "Thou shalt not circumvent thy neighbor's technological measure."
** "Thou shalt not manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in circumvention devices."
Do you read me [eff.org], pooky?Will it be vaporware? (Score:3, Interesting)
Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Perens
Free Software Evangelist
22-July-2002
RealNetworks is announcing today that some of their software will be
released as Open Source or Free Software. While RealNetworks is making a
significant contribution to Open Source, today's release does not include
the "crown jewels" -- their "codecs", the encoding and decoding software
for their proprietary RealAudio and RealVideo formats. I will go into more
detail regarding what they are proposing to release, and when, in this
message.
I'd also like to say what my role is in this. It is not to endorse, but
to explain what's going on from an Open Source perspective. Some of the
pieces announced today will be Open Source, but many will not be. Thus,
I can't fully approve of what is going on. I will continue to lobby
RealNetworks to follow today's step by going fully open, and I urge you to
continue to use fully open codecs in preference to the RealNetworks ones.
It was entertaining to see the first sentence of the invitation that
RealNetworks sent to some of the press:
> On Monday at 10am in SF, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perrins, Brian Bellendorf
> etc. will all be attending a press conference with Real Networks and 30
> other top industry companies for a significant industry announcement.
I am flattered by their enthusiasm, especially since I'd told them
repeatedly that I'd not be making an endorsement. This shows that
RealNetworks may actually be able to deal with the Open Source community
on the community's own terms. That will be essential if a real partnership
is to come of today's announcement.
So, what is RealNetworks proposing? They plan to release code in 90
days. Some of the details of that code, including what parts are included
in the release and how they are licensed, may change before then.
RealNetworks "client engine", the thing that lives in the desktop or the
web browser and drives the client half of their codec, will be available
under a license that is derived from the Apple Public Source License, but
with goals much closer to the GNU General Public License. The license text
includes a patent grant. Like the APSL and the NPL licenses, it grants
RealNetworks a right to relicense your code under any license of their choice.
So it is unlike the GPL in that it gives one party more rights than all
others. This license has yet to be approved by the Open Source Initiative
board, or accepted by the Free Software Foundation, or even fully reviewed by
yours truly. It may have to be modified before it is worthy of acceptance by
the community.
The Open Source client engine will probably include:
> - RTSP/RTP/RTCP/SDP network playback
> - UDP support
> - Local file playback
> - Single source A/V
> - A/V data type interface
> - file format interface
> - some A/V codec support (TBD; standards-based, probably MP3 and 3GPP
> codecs)
I have an even longer list of other features that the Open Source client
_may_ include, which I can't show you until they decide. On the list of
functions that most likely won't be included, besides the codecs, there's
a lot of utility and user-interface code.
So, we're getting some network protocols that go on top of IP and UDP,
and do their best to provide continuous playback despite the fact that
the Internet doesn't guarantee throughput or latency. On top of that are
file formats and data objects, and other pieces necessary to make an Open
Source player for some already-open file formats. It is likely that many
of the client pieces will be applicable to servers and encoders as well,
although RealNetworks is not placing their server and "encoder engine"
in Open Source. Combining the Open Source player with RealNetworks
proprietary codecs will produce a player for the RealAudio and RealVideo
formats on new platforms where no player existed before.
Perhaps the greatest beneficiary of RealNetworks contribution could
be the Ogg Vorbis audio format. Ogg is a fully Open Source codec,
unencumbered by patents or royalty payment requirements, which
offers audio quality comparable to, or better then, its proprietary
competition. The Ogg encoder and servers, not just the client, are
available as Open Source. The addition of RealNetworks network protocols
and other utilities might make Ogg even better, and might facilitate the
inclusion of Ogg as an option in RealNetworks proprietary products.
RealNetworks server and "encoder engine", without the actual codecs,
will be under a "community source" license. This means that source code
will be disclosed to people who sign an agreement, and those people will
get a lot less than the full set of rights that come with Open Source
licensing. Since other streaming servers and encoders are already fully
Open Source, we can't expect the Open Source community to have much to
do with this part of RealNetworks code. However, community source does
make life easier for RealNetworks partners, whose business depends on
this code and who might not have had source code until now.
The RealAudio and RealVideo codecs will be available in compiled form, as
proprietary software that can be linked into a larger product. Again, no joy
in the Free Software camp. However, these codecs will be available for use
along with various Open Source pieces that Real is releasing, and thus it will
be easier to for third parties to produce a half-proprietary Real-format player
under Linux and on other operating systems where one is not supported today.
Why is Real doing this? Obviously, they are under pressure from
Microsoft's Media Player, and would like to prevent that product
from achieving market domination. Increasing open-ness is a weapon in
that battle, because a perception of open-ness will make more people
consider RealNetworks products as standards rather than just products.
But RealNetworks may not be able to afford to be open enough - their
revenue today depends on licensing fees for the use of their software, and
unless they can change their business model somewhat, it will be difficult
for them to achieve a real partnership with the Open Source community.
That community has little to gain by replacing Microsoft's proprietary
audio format with RealNetworks still-proprietary audio format. The Free
Software folks will continue to develop Ogg Vorbis and other solutions,
although perhaps in a way that is more compatible with RealNetworks
proprietary software. Thus, I consider todays announcement to be only a
first step for RealNetworks, with additional steps necessary if they are
to succeed. On behalf of the Open Source and Free Software developers, I
hope to be able to help RealNetworks take those additional steps.
Respectfully Submitted
Bruce Perens
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.theregus.com/content/6/25690.html [theregus.com]
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2)
Which is a pity, as their user-interface is terrible, and could do with some external inspection (although admittedly open source doesn't have the worlds greatest track record on that front either
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Real's web Site for this release opens. (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Helix Encoder (Score:2)
You said that it won't be the Real format, which is fine, but what formats will it encode for? Windows Media? MPEG? Or is it more just a pluggable framework for codecs?
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, he also pointed out that their license has not been given careful review, and could change for better or worse before release of any software.
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2)
No patent license is granted separate from the Covered Code, for code that you delete from the Covered Code, or for combinations of the Covered Code with other software or hardware.
You may create a derivative work under copyright, but you don't have the right to run the code for profit (or whatever use can infringe a patent in your legislation).
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2, Informative)
Warning : Misinformation Troll (Score:2, Informative)
Could this make things worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, could this make the Open Source streaming media situation worse, at least in the short-term?
Re:Could this make things worse? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:Could this make things worse? (Score:2)
Thanks! (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally, I'd like to thank Eric Raymond and Brian Behlendorf for also being here today, and for their valuable feedback in making sure we're doing the Right Thing(tm). We've also discussed many aspects of this with Emmett Plant and Jack Moffitt of Xiph.org/Vorbis fame as well as Tim O'Reilly and the folks at O'Reilly & Associates, and we're very excited about the opportunities on that horizon. Last but not least, I'd like to thank CollabNet for their incredible help on the launch, and we're looking forward to working with Mark Murphy and the rest of the crew to make Helix into a success.
With regards to the business model, I feel I should respond. This is a very deliberately measured approach to joining the open source community. We have a responsibility to our shareholders to continue to make a profit over the long haul. In the short term, this means withholding some technology to continue forward without drastically altering our current business model.
In the long term, we will be thinking very deeply about how to resolve the business paradox of making money while giving stuff away. It's not new territory for us, but this is certainly a new application of that expertise. Bruce, Eric, Mark Donovan (@RealNetworks) and I had a very interesting conversation at lunch about this, and I'd like to continue this conversation with the them and the rest of the community at OSCON this week.
At any rate, we're very excited about this foray into what's a brave new world for our company. As with any company shifting away from a mosty proprietary software model, I imagine we'll have the occasional faux pas and hiccup. However, I'm incredibly excited about the step we've made, and
hopeful that we can have a fruitful partnership with the community (and if someone can come up with a non-nausiating word for "synergistic"...I'll use that too!)
Rob Lanphier
Program Manager -- Interoperability
RealNetworks
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a dictatorship if nobody has to do what they say - and they have no way of compelling anyone to do so. What FSF and OSI do is leadership. And you know that I am not always happy with the leadership that either organization exercises. Like FSF and OSI, I take the trouble to review companies approach to the community and tell people whether or not I find them acceptable. If I were totally in left field, nobody would listen. Same with FSF and OSI.
Bruce
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2)
Unfortunately, insightful comments that don't 'toe the party line' here do tend to get moderated down as 'Flamebait', or even 'Troll'.
Such is Slashdot, eh?
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2)
If nothing else, they could be getting into the patent battle, but it may be that they and MS are cross-licensed.
Bruce
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:4, Informative)
Bruceg
Re:Part Open Source, Part Not (Score:2)
Bruce
But.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Dare I say it, however isn't this exactly what BnetD did with Battle.Net? Why can Real media get away with it but not BnetD? This makes no sense at all.
Re:But.. (Score:2)
This is not analogous to the Vivendi complaint... (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, but it seems that honest to goodness reverse engineering is still legally safe, for the time being.
The Player War? (Score:4, Interesting)
Good news is if the thing is waterproof and 100% Open Source... Maybe time to rejoice after all...
Re:The Player War? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, it is nice that Real is doing this for Open Sourcers, but, on the other, what other choice did they have?
So, before anyone wets their skeeves with dreams of Open Source-everything, be prepared for this to be the first in an unwieldy trend of crap being released to be saved by open sources, with no credit given back to them.
Some people say don't look a gift horse in the mouth, well this isn't a gift horse, it is just another media dinosaur waiting in the bushes to rip everyone off.
But hey, I could be wrong.
reverse engineered? (Score:5, Interesting)
AFAIK, you can reverse engineer the protocol correctly. What you need to do is have a programmer or team of programmers reverse engineer the stream and create a working replica. Once they've successfully created a Windows Media streaming program, they sit in a conference room with a team of "virgin" programmers who haven't seen the source or any data from the stream. The virgin coders then talk with the team that reverse engineered the stream, but don't actually see the source or the technical information. The virgin coding team then takes that data and creates a new software component.
I just really hope they took that vital step, otherwise RealNetworks is violating Microsoft's IP and will get sued off the face of the earth.
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, this is *assuming* that they did as you suggest and had isolated virgin programmers, which I hope they did for their sake (that said, I've seen companies do this on a couple of occassions for whatever legal reason).
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL, but assuming RealMedia did a proper clean-room implementation, what they've done is an independant creative work. Microsoft's copyright has not been violeted because nothing of the new implementation belongs to Microsoft.
There are also passages of the DMCA that deal with reverse-engineering for the purpose of inter-operability, but it will probably take a real lawyer to say anything intelligent about how applicable they may be to this situation.
-JS
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:3)
However... it's probably a waste of time. MSFT will simply change their protocols. Any OSS player based on RealNetwork's code will remain a niche player. Sorry for the pun.
History shows that you cannot fight MSFT head on. You have to invent a new game. Streaming video and audio in the classic manner is dead. Long live P2P TV!
RealNetworks would have done better to invest their money in an open source P2P TV product.
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:5, Funny)
Is there any other kind?
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:2)
Much better is for the reverse engineers to fully document the protocol on paper, then for the clean team to implement the protocol from that document, along with a statement that they did not do the reverse engineering and have not seen the original code.
This is how Phoenix did their clean-room clone of the original IBM BIOS.
Documenting the protocol on paper gives you two additional benefits. First, it gives you a written snapshot of the protocol at the time the implementation was done, and second, it can be used as documentary evidence in case of a lawsuit. Portions of the clean code can be compared to the spec, and to the original code, to show the differences in implementation.
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, if Microsoft has patents on any of this, it's likely that Real is out of luck even if they did a complete "clean room" implementation of the software.
clean room not nessisary. (Score:2)
Most of the time you don't need a clean room.
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:3, Informative)
In the middle of 1997 I went into work one day, and we were all called, a company wide meeting, into the lunch room. A bunch of chairs for us as audience, and a row of chairs up front containing Microsoft people. They (M$oft) bought the company, and the software became Windows Media Player and the server component whose name I don't know.
Over the course of the purchase it was disclosed that at the same time as M$oft bought VXtreme, they also did deals with Real and a couple other video companies. The deal with Real was some kind of cross licensing, and over all the deal was to change the whole market from this little competition to M$oft owning it and all the other players being tools vendors supporting M$oft. Of course Real and M$oft later had a falling out.
My point is, that in 1997 Real and M$oft made a deal. I certainly don't know what was involved in that deal, and didn't care to look and find out more.
Real may be in trouble.
- David Herron
Re:reverse engineered? (Score:2)
Reverse Engineered?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Woot! More, more! Nothing would make me happier than seeing some big fishes render MS's hushhush approach to file formats a moot tactic.
IANAL, so I'll leave the speculative legal analyses to other posters, but that sure sounds illegal, doesn't it?
Does this signify a complete failure of their content delivery service (SuperPass?)
Re:Reverse Engineered?! (Score:2, Informative)
And the file format for ASF files is available on the Microsoft website here [microsoft.com].
The Register also has an article about it (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)
RealOne is a huge improvement over previous products but you still have to be careful with it re-associating itself with certain file types. I think what has helped Real, though, is the fact the Windows Media Player really peaked at 6.4 and has itself become bloated.
Parallels with Netscape? (Score:5, Interesting)
Step 2: Microsoft steps in and begins to eat up your market with their desktop integration
Step 3: Struggle. Squirm.
Step 4: Release source to your application.
Granted, this might not be all of Real's assets in the way that Netscape released their browser source, but it could be the leg up that free software needs to get into the streaming and streaming client market. Also, it bears noting that Netscape (i.e. AOL/TW) invested tons of money to make the product work after they released the source. The Mozilla project certainly wouldn't be where it is today without that investment.
Now, how would it proceed?
Step 5: Company is marginalized, possibly dies.
Step 6: Free software product lives on.
We've already seen Nautilus from Eazel do this on the GNOME desktop (although some people seem to dislike the bloated desktop). It certainly is a possibility with Netscape, given the recent troubles at AOL/Time Warner. And I can't remember the time I read a positive article about Real, but then again, I might just be missing out.
Now, I guess I should read the CNN article...
Re:Parallels with Netscape? (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2: Microsoft steps in and begins to eat up your market with their desktop integration
Step 3: Struggle. Squirm.
Step 4: Release source to your application.
Now, how would it proceed?
DMCA Violation? (Score:2)
I'm not American, so my details on this would be hazy. But this is reverse engineering. And you're in trouble of the DMCA kind when you perform such an operation, I've observed.
Am I correct?
Re:DMCA Violation? (Score:2)
The bigger problem for Real, I would imagine, is the (insane!) patents that Microsoft was able to obtain for the ASF protocol. Despite the fact that ASF is basically very simple, MS was able to obtain a patent, thus effectively preventing anyone from producing anything compatible with it unless they license the Windows Media Format SDK.
Re:DMCA Violation? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:DMCA Violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DMCA Violation? (Score:2)
The New York Times article. (Score:2, Informative)
NY Times link (Score:2, Informative)
Do not support this if... (Score:2, Insightful)
No codecs to be released (Score:4, Informative)
For example, today's RealServer can stream QuickTime files, and they certainly don't have source to the Sorenson codecs.
Um?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Didn't Real put Streambox [uh.edu] out of market because Streambox had reveng'ed the protocol to allow downloads of streaming media?!
Maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but that would really smell of hypocrisy.
RealNetworks sued Streambox for ignoring a BIT. (Score:3, Informative)
The streambox vcr client sent the "secret handshake" to a realmedia server, and realmedia sued over this because it was very easy to 'fake out' a streaming server in this way, and then ignore the 'don't save' bit.
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/cjoyce/copyright/rel ease10/Real.html [uh.edu]
Marketing hype != OSS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Marketing hype != OSS (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.realnetworks.com/company/press/relea
Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:4, Interesting)
In April, RealMedia reached 17 million at-home viewers, compared with Windows Media at 15.1 million and Apple Computer's QuickTime at 7.3 million, according to Nielsen/NetRatings. At work, Windows Media drew about 12.2 million unique viewers, compared with RealMedia's 11.6 million and QuickTime's 5 million.
In 2001 Quicktime was downloaded about 80 million times. My personal website experience also contradicts Quicktime usage numbers as well. Huh? Are they counting porn in those numbers?
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got to consider certain things...
NetRatings software availiable only for Windows:
http://www.macopinion.com/columns/tangi
Then, take a look at their website:
http://pm.netratings.com/nnpm/owa/NRpub
This list seems suspect. Obviously Microsoft tops the list since MSN.com is the default homepage for IE.
Also, keep in mind that NetRatings is simply tracking its own users. The 7.3 million for QuickTime is amongst those being tracked. Obviously, this number will differ greatly from the actual number of downloads (which is also misleading as I'm sure you've downloaded QuickTime more than once due to re-installs, upgrades, etc.)
Ratings (like statistics) tend to lie. How can RealPlayer have a larger install base on Windows when Media Player is installed by default? Who knows. Maybe they only track certain versions, intentional usage or something else.
-NT
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:2)
Consider how many times each individual may have downloaded Quicktime, to reinstall, to upgrade, to move to a different computer, to load it on multiple computers...
Of course how they determine unique viewers is likely questionable.
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:2)
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:2)
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:2)
Is there such a thing as "defenseless shellfish?" Aren't the shells their defense? It is things like this that keep me up at night...
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:2)
Re:Articles usage numbers suspect?? (Score:2)
License (Score:2)
Sorta like DVD players. Apex probably broke their contract, but mplayer/xine/etc didn't break anything.
Seems like an obvious strategy from the start... (Score:2)
If I create/sell tools for a format, and give the players away for free anyway, I want as many people to use the format as possible. If the format becomes standard, I'm in a great position since I control the content creation side (i.e. where the $$$ is).
So people creating open source players/viewers doesn't hurt me, it helps me enormously, since I don't have to expend resources maintaining all possible platforms.
Doug
Speaking of reverse engineering protocols . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, Microsoft wouldn't be where it is today without reverse engineering.
The sword cuts both ways, Billy.
Patent problems, not DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
If I remember correctly, though, Microsoft has a patent on the ASF format scheme itself. The granting of this patent in the first place was ridiculous - (thought sadly commonplace these days) - ASF is a very simple format for multiplexing video/audio/whatever over a single stream. There's nothing innovative about it.
Of course plenty of patents are issued these days for very unimaginative, uninnovative things - what makes MS's patent so unusual is that it's tantamount to patenting a file format - something that could effectively prevent otherwise legal reverse-engineering.
The author of Virtual Dub [virtualdub.org] was forced to remove ASF compatibility after pressure from Microsoft regarding the patent.
Microsoft - boldly leading us back into the dark ages of incompatibility!
perhaps they are prepared to demonstrate prior art (Score:2)
Sounds like all that is necessary is an example of time-division multiplexing. Perhaps they could get somebody from AT&T who was doing this in the 60s.
US Centrism (Score:2)
Very true, Microsoft owns this and numerous other rediculous patents, and, to be fair, plenty of other companies own software patents of varying stupidity as well.
But this only matters to the United States, which seems to be doing all it can to make itself the technological backwater of the world, hamstringing itself with software (and business-method) patents, criminalizing reverse-engineering (DMCA), and now attempting to criminalize general computing itself through government mandated DRM (SSSCA/CBDTPA/BPDG) [the latter of which may happen through the back-door via the FCC, with no new legislation debated or passed, if Senator "Disney" Hollings has his way].
Once this source has been released (assuming it has been released under a free license) it will be in the wild, so to speak, and remain free in the rest of the world even if those of us unfortunate enough to be living under the American Regime are not permitted to use it.
Either way, releasing this under a free license would be a good thing. It remains to be seen, however, just how free Real's license turns out to be.
more details (Score:2, Informative)
RealNetworks forms the Helix Community with support from HP, Intel, Nokia, Oracle, PalmSource, Sony Corporation, Sun Microsystems and more than 20 Other Companies and Organizations
read the complete announce [realnetworks.com]
Real is shooting themselves in the foot on this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real is shooting themselves in the foot on this (Score:2)
Thats why Raal should GPL the source; that scenario would not be possible without M$ being forced to free the source to Mafia Player, which they will never do.
Open source, hrm. (Score:2)
"to-little-to-late" (Score:2, Funny)
Open source and 'Secure' for Sony? (Score:3, Informative)
"Under the Ubiquitous 'Value' Network strategy, Sony aims to create a secure (emphasis added), user-friendly environment where people can enjoy a wide variety of online digital media contents via various networked CE devices and PCs."
If Sony's definition of "secure" is what I think it is, then that means that they expect that this platform will contain DRM features to "protect" their content.
DRM is fundamentally incompatible with open source. If, as I am given to understand, the only thing closed-source about this release is Real's codecs, then there are no barriers to arbitrary saving, copying, and redistribution of downloaded streams. There will no longer be such a thing as a 'stream-only' Real feed; the software can be altered to not respect the appropriate bits. There is no security for the likes of Sony when consumers have control over their own computers - it flies in the face of their DRM strategy.
So what's up? Has Sony et al changed their mind about what defines "secure?" Has this consortium decided to give the content industries the cold shoulder? Or, if this is to contain some form of concession to the ??AAs, what technical shape will it take?
No open-source server (Score:2)
1. Real's server license costs and arm and a leg. Thousands of dollars a year. Windows Media server can be installed (for now) for free on MS Server operating systems.
2. Real's player is an absolute pain in the ass to set up. Have to dodge around dozens of registration pages, email address requests, deselecting "additional bonus spam", etc. Then you get bombarded with advertising, and disabled features.
Windows media - just doubleclick on the link on MS's web site, and it's installed. Done.
Real REALLY dropped the ball on streaming media - they used to have a near monopoly on it, but the additional crap they shoveled on us made it useless.
cvs diff RealPlayer.c (Score:3, Funny)
Humorous exchange (Score:4, Funny)
Perens: I've been reading questions off of slashdot, most of which have been positive.
Glaser: Are you sure you have the right URL?
Player? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a move to appeal to providers starting to go on the fence regarding Windows Media, not to end-users. This will offer the most tweakable solution to vendors and potentially a way to make the most efficient server in town, without opening the realmedia format. They know full well the minute they do that alternative players will pop up that don't show ads, that don't 'call home' to real, and offer an easy to use interface that is easier to get at than real will allow its player to be, and their player software will fall by the wayside.
Without the ads/private information provided by their player, their business model would fall apart and they know it. They've been thus far relying on being encumbant to power their usage, and in the face of the Microsoft behemoth, that is going away.
They are perfectly willing to sacrifice ad revenue and excessive personal info collection for their linux player for the sake of claiming to be more cross-platform (even their developing RealOne player doesn't do ads and doesn't even offer the 'gold pass' option). If they were sure that the information would only be used for linux and other 'fringe system' decoding, they would gladly open up their format. They don't seem to like developing their non-windows versions as they take forever to do so, and that would mean they no longer had to worry. Mplayer has had some success with their binary codecs, and I doubt they could care. The current linux user base would provide more bad than useful data anyway in their forms and not tend to be influenced by Real's marketing. Linux is just a nice platform to say 'look, look, does Windows media or quicktime work natively with linux? we must be better, we are cross-platform!"
But the second ZoomPlayer had realmedia support, Real could kiss RealOne's popularity goodbye, and then next stop, chapter 11....
Re:Player? (Score:4, Informative)
mplayer (Score:5, Interesting)
An observation on the RPSL draft... (Score:3)
Some people have claimed that, like the MPL, the RPSL give Real Networks the right to use your code created under that license commercially. This is not true.
Specifically, if we read section 4 of their license, we see that: Further, we see that Real Networks does not really expect to get anything of value to themselves from the efforts of Open Source programmers; specifically, in section 11, we see: The specific effect of the combination of these sections is that they seem to believe that they will not get anything commercially useful from the Open Source community that they are attempting to create, since they are not requiring the ability to commercially distribute the code under terms other than the license... which is not applicable to their commercially distributed code.
-- Terry
Linux server preferred? (Score:3)
However, they also claim that RM/Redhat 7.3 beats WM/NT2K on the same hardware by 340%, *twice* as fast as WM/NT on the same hardware!
REAL has the right to use it (Score:4, Interesting)
So the article is incorrect.
Re:All I care to know is (Score:2, Informative)
Re:All I care to know is (Score:4, Informative)
Re:All I care to know is (Score:2, Informative)
I just read through the license, and really I don't see anything that restrictive or unusual here. It seems to hold to the spirit of OSS; namely, that you can modify & release your modifications to your hearts content, and they can do the same. I don't see anything where they can release your modifications under a different license. Any release of modified code would fall under the license itself, which prohibits releasing non-open code. So, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks pretty legit.
Re:Isnt it against the DMCA? (Score:2, Informative)
Reverse Engineering isn't illegal, the DMCA 'merely' (the quotes mean sarcasim) makes it illegal to distribute something which would 'circumvent an effective copyright control mechanisim.' Now, reverse engineering was probably involved in the production of that something, but the reverse engineering aspect of it is not itself illegal (well, atleast not as a result of the DMCA).
If the releasing of this code allows the circumvention of some stupid DRM thing in windows media player and associated formats, then MS might actually have a case with the DMCA. Which would put me actually agreeing with Real about something, which would be damned weird. I haven't used WMP in years though, so I have no idea if it actually implements any DRM things or not.Any one care to enlighten me on this?
DMCA is toothless without the Bono Act (Score:3, Interesting)
thought [reverse-engineering a proprietary protocol] was no longer legal in [the United States]
1. Only if the protocol "effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". If you test the app using Charlie Chaplin movies or other pre-1923 content, you're not triggering the DMCA's circumvention ban (17 USC 1201) [cornell.edu].
2. The circumvention ban contains an exemption in 1201(f) for reverse engineering necessary to achieve interoperability. It's not my fault Judge Kaplan ignored this subsection; I consider it an incompetent error.
Re:DMCA is toothless without the Bono Act (Score:2)
Oh my goodness, what a beautiful loophole! It couldn't really come up in the DVD case, but WMA has been used on a far wider variety of content. I think you've really got something here. :-)
There is no such thing as a copyrighted protocol (Score:2)
Re:Dreamcast, PS2 and Xbox ports ??? (Score:2)
this is not a flame, i just want to know the logic behind your decision.