Microsoft/Novell Collaboration on Silverlight. on 05 Sep 2007
Ted Gould
Will other projects (ie GStreamer) be able to use them also? It would
seem if the APIs are public the only restriction would be a licensing
one.
Miguel de Icaza
The license is only for use in Moonlight, it will not be possible to use the codecs for use outside of the browser. For that, you would still need to buy codecs from someone like Fluendo.
Miguel.
Ted Gould
So does that mean that Moonlight will only play videos when embedded in
a browser also? I was under the impression that it could be used in
other applications for multimedia effects.
--Ted
lupus
> So does that mean that Moonlight will only play videos when embedded in
> a browser also? I was under the impression that it could be used in
> other applications for multimedia effects.
We'll have a separate moonlight widget that can be embedded in desktop
apps that will use gstreamer or another codec interface: with that you
will be able to use any audio/video codecs you have a license to use.
It's just the MS codecs that can be used only in a web browser, if you
have other codecs, you can use them, moonlight is free software.
Leszek Ciesielski
licence, there will be nothing to prevent someone from merging the two
tools and patching the widget to use the in-browser codecs? After all,
the code for both will be available and be mostly the same, or am I
mistaken? Will there be some technical limitations as well?
Miguel de Icaza
license agreement. It is a bit like redistributing GPL code as proprietary,
nothing prevents you from doing it, but you will be in violation of the license
and you will be responsible for it.
Miguel.
Webmink
On Sep 6, 5:58 am, "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel.de.ic...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> The license is only for use in Moonlight, it will not be possible to use the
> codecs for use outside of the browser. For that, you would still need to
> buy codecs from someone like Fluendo.
Did I read correctly that the CODECS are binary only?
S.
Miguel de Icaza
> The license is only for use in Moonlight, it will not be possible to use the
> codecs for use outside of the browser. For that, you would still need to
> buy codecs from someone like Fluendo.
Did I read correctly that the CODECS are binary only?
Today you can only get GPL codecs which we are unable to redistribute
(discuss with your favorite patent attorney), so Microsoft will be providing
binary codecs that will be redistributed by them.
Miguel.
Webmink
As I recall the CODECS are available only as binaries - correct?
S.
lupus
> As I recall the CODECS are available only as binaries - correct?
You can get open source codecs from the ffmpeg project, source and
all.
Now the issue is whether you can distribute them legally: if you
consult your patent lawyers you'll find out that there are some
companies that prevent you from doing that, because they want to milk
people with patents. One of those companies, btw, is a 3 letter
company name starting with S and ending with n.
lupus
Webmink
On Sep 8, 9:04 am, lupus <illu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can get open source codecs from the ffmpeg project, source and
> all.
For VC-1 video as well? And for the formats Microsoft's Silverlight
ecosystem is likely to use?
> Now the issue is whether you can distribute them legally: if you
> consult your patent lawyers you'll find out that there are some
> companies that prevent you from doing that, because they want to milk
> people with patents. One of those companies, btw, is a 3 letter
> company name starting with S and ending with n.
If you believe Sun is a company that wants to "milk people with
patents" in the general case, you are wrong. If you're referring to
NetApp, you'll find they are not telling the truth. If you are
referring to something else, let me know and I'll try to fix it - I am
not aware of a CODEC licensing business at Sun.
S.
lupus
> > You can get open source codecs from the ffmpeg project, source and
> > all.
>
> For VC-1 video as well? And for the formats Microsoft's Silverlight
> ecosystem is likely to use?
Yes, a little google-fu would easily tell you. This is the same code
we use currently in moonlight. It's surprising you don't know what the
free software world does and uses in this area, since you blogged
about this argument, but I guess doing minimal research is not a
requirement anymore for instructing other people on any topic.
> If you believe Sun is a company that wants to "milk people with
> patents" in the general case, you are wrong. If you're referring to
> NetApp, you'll find they are not telling the truth. If you are
> referring to something else, let me know and I'll try to fix it - I am
> not aware of a CODEC licensing business at Sun.
Sun is a licensor for MPEG4, let us know when Sun will provide a
royalty-free, irrevocable license for the relevant patents for use in
free software (note I don't know the actual list of patents, so don't
ask: the info about Sun being a licensor is on the mpegla web site).
lupus
Simon Phipps
On Sep 8, 2007, at 16:52, lupus wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 4:21 pm, Webmink <webm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You can get open source codecs from the ffmpeg project, source and
>>> all.
>>
>> For VC-1 video as well? And for the formats Microsoft's Silverlight
>> ecosystem is likely to use?
>
> Yes, a little google-fu would easily tell you. This is the same code
> we use currently in moonlight.
Thank-you. That confirms what I thought.
> It's surprising you don't know what the
> free software world does and uses in this area, since you blogged
> about this argument, but I guess doing minimal research is not a
> requirement anymore for instructing other people on any topic.
I'm not sure you actually know how Microsoft's Silverlight ecosystem
is going to evolve; I certainly don't, and my question was largely
rhetorical. To make it clearer, the question I and others will keep
repeating is, how do you work around the fact that the control point
for media formats is the CODECs and not the code they live in?
S.
lupus
> > On Sep 8, 4:21 pm, Webmink <webm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, a little google-fu would easily tell you. This is the same code
> > we use currently in moonlight.
>
> Thank-you. That confirms what I thought.
Well, not sure what was your thought, it certainly looks like you had
no clue about the codec situation in the free software world, I guess
you not using free software explains that.
> I'm not sure you actually know how Microsoft's Silverlight ecosystem
> is going to evolve; I certainly don't, and my question was largely
> rhetorical. To make it clearer, the question I and others will keep
> repeating is, how do you work around the fact that the control point
> for media formats is the CODECs and not the code they live in?
What you're missing is that it's the content providers that decide
what to use.
In fact we support the patent-free theora codec in moonlight out of
the box, so when you can convince the content providers to produce it,
we'll be there already. Don't worry, I guess someone will do the work
and port moonlight to your preferred proprietary operating system so
you'll be able to enjoy some of the freedom we enjoy as well already.
We are developers and so we produce free software: I guess if we were
movie makers we'd produce free as in freedom movies, but you can't
pretend we also produce the content: that's up to the content
producers. We just provide them the tools to deliver content with free
software, enabling also the use patent-free codecs while we wait for
companies like Sun to stop milking royalties out of users for the mpeg
codecs.
lupus
Simon Phipps
On Sep 8, 2007, at 19:33, lupus wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure you actually know how Microsoft's Silverlight ecosystem
>> is going to evolve; I certainly don't, and my question was largely
>> rhetorical. To make it clearer, the question I and others will keep
>> repeating is, how do you work around the fact that the control point
>> for media formats is the CODECs and not the code they live in?
>
> What you're missing is that it's the content providers that decide
> what to use.
No, that is exactly my point. You are unable to affect the control
points that will be used to remove freedoms from people.
> We just provide them the tools to deliver content with free
> software, enabling also the use patent-free codecs while we wait for
> companies like Sun to stop milking royalties out of users for the mpeg
> codecs.
You keep accusing Sun of "milking royalties for mpeg codecs". Please
show me the evidence.
S.
lupus
> On Sep 8, 2007, at 19:33, lupus wrote:
> > What you're missing is that it's the content providers that decide
> > what to use.
>
> No, that is exactly my point. You are unable to affect the control
> points that will be used to remove freedoms from people.
Sure, I can hardly have an effect on world hunger: so what?
We can't strong-arm content providers to do anything, we can just
enable people with free software and we do, since free software people
can just use moonlight with theora. The only people left in the cold
are people like you that use proprietary software: is that why you're
so worried? Someone will port moonlight on OSX, too.
> > We just provide them the tools to deliver content with free
> > software, enabling also the use patent-free codecs while we wait for
> > companies like Sun to stop milking royalties out of users for the mpeg
> > codecs.
>
> You keep accusing Sun of "milking royalties for mpeg codecs". Please
> show me the evidence.
I already did, do your research or do you think the mpegla group lists
Sun as a patent licensor out of a mistake? This is the same group that
prevents free software from using and distributing freely the codecs.
lupus
Miguel de Icaza
> > We just provide them the tools to deliver content with free
> > software, enabling also the use patent-free codecs while we wait for
> > companies like Sun to stop milking royalties out of users for the mpeg
> > codecs.
>
> You keep accusing Sun of "milking royalties for mpeg codecs". Please
> show me the evidence.
I already did, do your research or do you think the mpegla group lists
Sun as a patent licensor out of a mistake? This is the same group that
prevents free software from using and distributing freely the codecs.
I believe that Sun in this case is the milk-ee, not the milker.
They have to pay fees to MPEG-LA to use the patents on some piece of
software (I have no idea which, but I would suspect Java Media Framework
as it supports H.264 and that is one of the patents that MPEG-LA licenses).
So maybe what Paolo is saying is that Sun seems to be happy to join the
group of people that instead of opting for non-patent encumbered technologies
has decided to be practical and foment the use of the H.264 patented
technologies.
Of course, the fact that Sun is doing that, does not subtract any value from
Simon's point that we are assisting folks into interoperating in a universe that
is sadly patented, which is a point well taken.
It seems that the only guys that are actually pushing OGG-only video are the
WHAT-WG guys that mandate support for OGG, although currently only
Presto and the development version of Mozilla have an implementation.
Miguel.
Miguel de Icaza
It seems that the only guys that are actually pushing OGG-only video are the
WHAT-WG guys that mandate support for OGG, although currently only
Presto and the development version of Mozilla have an implementation.
I just made the mistake of reading the whatwg mailing list, it does not seem
mandatory, and Apple at least is taking the position that they will not support
OGG because they fear "submarine patents" themselves:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-June/011973.html
Read the whole thread, it is sad in so many ways, in particular the point of
the second Apple engineer (Dave Singer). It is a bit of speculation, but if
correct, it raises an important issue and that is that without serious patent
reform Moonlight and Silverlight codecs are not any worse than any other
standard available today.
We can raise a stink here, but it would be as useful as complaining that
computers use power.
Miguel.
Miguel de Icaza
I have bad news, Sun is also a milker in MPEG-LA:
http://www.mpegla.com/m4s/m4s-att1.pdf
This came up on the OGG discussions on WHATWG, the Sun patent contributed to the MPEG-LA patent pool in this case is: 6,092,120. They also appear on various press releases, this is one:
http://lists.mpegif.org/pipermail/news/2003-February/000125.html
Miguel.
Simon Phipps
On Sep 8, 2007, at 20:39, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > You keep accusing Sun of "milking royalties for mpeg codecs". Please
> > show me the evidence.
>
> I already did, do your research or do you think the mpegla group lists
> Sun as a patent licensor out of a mistake? This is the same group that
> prevents free software from using and distributing freely the codecs.
>
> I believe that Sun in this case is the milk-ee, not the milker.
Absolutely the case, thanks Miguel. Sun is a licensee, not a
licensor, and the list lupus is referring to is a list of MPEG-LA's
victims.
> They have to pay fees to MPEG-LA to use the patents on some piece of
> software (I have no idea which, but I would suspect Java Media
> Framework
> as it supports H.264 and that is one of the patents that MPEG-LA
> licenses).
Sounds very likely, yes. It may also be for something shipped with
Solaris.
Sadly this is the way ecosystems work. As they gather momentum from
an early circle who are actively amoral, the pressure on others grows
until it becomes hard-to-impossible to trade in a segment without
playing along.
S.
Miguel de Icaza
Sadly this is the way ecosystems work. As they gather momentum from
an early circle who are actively amoral, the pressure on others grows
until it becomes hard-to-impossible to trade in a segment without
playing along.
Agreed with your statement.
But with the above consideration, would you not admit that Moonlight is no worse than any of the other alternatives at this point?
And although I appreciate that there might be something that can be done in the area of breaking this vicious circle am not sure that (a) it is possible at this point (even with ogg, see Apple's posting) and (b) that there is something -we- the Moonlight team can do.
It is an interesting quest, am sure of that, but Moonlight and Silverlight should not be the poster childs of the industry practices, they seem to be pretty much standard practices from everyone that is involved in the business of audio and video.
Miguel.
Simon Phipps
Simon Phipps
On Sep 8, 2007, at 21:00, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>
> Sadly this is the way ecosystems work. As they gather momentum from
> an early circle who are actively amoral, the pressure on others grows
> until it becomes hard-to-impossible to trade in a segment without
> playing along.
>
> Agreed with your statement.
>
> But with the above consideration, would you not admit that
> Moonlight is no worse than any of the other alternatives at this
> point?
Tricky question. There are two dimensions to Mono and to Moonlight.
One is the dimension of providing a way out of the ecosystem by being
part of it, and the other is the dimension of being a way into the
ecosystem for those not yet absorbed by it.
Moonlight is certainly better than Flash or Quicktime since it
potentially offers a way neither of those have for the Free desktop
to be validated and used as a peer to the proprietary desktop (I
still don't have a Flash player for my 64-bit Ubuntu system for
example). But Moonlight is also worse than either of them since it is
likely to provide a vector for patent-bearing binary only CODECS and
DRM to reach the Free desktop and encourage their use for commercial
Free activities.
I apologise for not congratulating you on the benefits (I guessed you
already knew :-) But I'll continue to highlight the risks of a
system that creates a potential dependency for users-worth-suing to
retreat to their safe haven only to find that some patent-bearing
binaries followed them...
> And although I appreciate that there might be something that can be
> done in the area of breaking this vicious circle am not sure that
> (a) it is possible at this point (even with ogg, see Apple's
> posting) and (b) that there is something -we- the Moonlight team
> can do.
On (a), yes, it's tough. I'm certainly investigating everything I can
in my job that might help. Ideas welcome. At least I have Sun
committed to software freedom now, so there's progress, but I am
aware I have a lot left to do.
On (b) it's hard for me to say - I already got into enough trouble
for having an opinion :-) If you use Novell's developer programs to
promote developer activity around Free codecs so it preloads them
into tools preferentially, works with others to ensure tools support
them, that will help.
> It is an interesting quest, am sure of that, but Moonlight and
> Silverlight should not be the poster childs of the industry
> practices, they seem to be pretty much standard practices from
> everyone that is involved in the business of audio and video.
It's not just audio and video - it's anything associated with
communications, especially telephony. It arises from the historic way
that the communications space has handled standardisation. They use
consortia like 3GPP where all involvement and specs are without fee
and debated on technical merit, but where the outcome is subject to
the payment of patent royalties to the participants whose
contributions became part of the standard. All suppliers (including
Sun, it seems, and probably most other computer/software companies
more than a few years old) participated and the practice was not
especially problematic since all were equally affected on both sides
of the equation.
But as the world has drifted into the participation age, this
practice has shown its problematic side. We'll not get the
communications world weaned off it in a hurry, but I do believe we
have to collectively do all we can to prevent the same attitudes
bleeding over into the world of software and especially into Free
software.
S.
lupus
wrote:
> > > We just provide them the tools to deliver content with free
> > > > software, enabling also the use patent-free codecs while we wait for
> > > > companies like Sun to stop milking royalties out of users for the mpeg
> > > > codecs.
>
> > > You keep accusing Sun of "milking royalties for mpeg codecs". Please
> > > show me the evidence.
>
> > I already did, do your research or do you think the mpegla group lists
> > Sun as a patent licensor out of a mistake? This is the same group that
> > prevents free software from using and distributing freely the codecs.
>
> I believe that Sun in this case is the milk-ee, not the milker.
>
> They have to pay fees to MPEG-LA to use the patents on some piece of
> software (I have no idea which, but I would suspect Java Media Framework
> as it supports H.264 and that is one of the patents that MPEG-LA licenses).
Sun is a victim of other patents as is anybody else.
This doesn't mean that Sun is not using patents on codecs to its
advantage.
See the page of licensors of patents:
http://www.mpegla.com/m4s/m4s-licensors.cfm
> So maybe what Paolo is saying is that Sun seems to be happy to join the
> group of people that instead of opting for non-patent encumbered
> technologies
> has decided to be practical and foment the use of the H.264 patented
> technologies.
No, I said what the mpegla group says, that Sun is part of the group
of companies that is preventing free software users from using the
codecs,
see above. Until Sun provides a free license for its patents, it's
part of the milking companies.
lupus
Simon Phipps
On Sep 8, 2007, at 22:25, lupus wrote:
> No, I said what the mpegla group says, that Sun is part of the group
> of companies that is preventing free software users from using the
> codecs,
> see above. Until Sun provides a free license for its patents, it's
> part of the milking companies.
I'll get to work on it - I wasn't aware that a classloader patent was
in there.
S.
Miguel de Icaza
> No, I said what the mpegla group says, that Sun is part of the group
> of companies that is preventing free software users from using the
> codecs,
> see above. Until Sun provides a free license for its patents, it's
> part of the milking companies.
I'll get to work on it - I wasn't aware that a classloader patent was
in there.
would have in this area that would read on MPEG-LA patents and I was
surprised to find something that does not seem related to media.
And the explanation is possibly that those that contribute to the pool
get some benefit from it (like reduced fees, getting a break from some
of the requirements and so on). This seems to be how these patent pools
work.
Miguel.
Miguel de Icaza
No, I said what the mpegla group says, that Sun is part of the group
of companies that is preventing free software users from using the
codecs,
see above. Until Sun provides a free license for its patents, it's
part of the milking companies.
I see now.
Thanks for the explanation; I agree, we are all roughly on the same
level at this point (taking licenses to distribute support for specific
technologies that are patented).
miguel.
Miguel de Icaza
> But with the above consideration, would you not admit that
> Moonlight is no worse than any of the other alternatives at this
> point?
Tricky question. There are two dimensions to Mono and to Moonlight.
One is the dimension of providing a way out of the ecosystem by being
part of it, and the other is the dimension of being a way into the
ecosystem for those not yet absorbed by it.
Moonlight is certainly better than Flash or Quicktime since it
potentially offers a way neither of those have for the Free desktop
to be validated and used as a peer to the proprietary desktop (I
still don't have a Flash player for my 64-bit Ubuntu system for
example). But Moonlight is also worse than either of them since it is
likely to provide a vector for patent-bearing binary only CODECS and
DRM to reach the Free desktop and encourage their use for commercial
Free activities.
It is not worse than Flash or Quicktime already are. Both of them are
patent-bearing binary only codecs as well.
As for DRM, as much as I hate it, I for would not mind having DRM on Linux
if that allowed me to watch Netflix on demand on Linux. Currently only
Windows and MacOS users can use Netflix on demand. Only when I am
in the office (where I have my Windows machine) I can watch on demand.
So when it comes to "would I be willing to run a proprietary binary client
from NetFlix on Linux" or have to use Windows to watch my movies, the
answer is: yes, I would like my NetFlix proprietary DRM client for Linux.
I apologise for not congratulating you on the benefits (I guessed you
already knew :-) But I'll continue to highlight the risks of a
system that creates a potential dependency for users-worth-suing to
retreat to their safe haven only to find that some patent-bearing
binaries followed them...
You are making a crucial mistake here; You are confusing patents with
free software. And the problem here is that patents extend beyond the
proprietary software world, and they cast their shadow on the "safe haven".
The binary codec is the only way we found that we could ensure that
there would be no "users-worth-suing".
Feel free to suggest a solution, but you have to get your feet wet, you can not
just hand wave and play armchair general from the comfort of your proprietary
operating system where you make claims and recommendations as to what
others should be doing when using a pure open source operating system.
Sure Moonlight and Silvelright will promote a patented blob, but what about the
patented blobs that are wildly available today, and are actively being pushed and
promoted. If you want to rally around something, why not rally around something
that actually has market share?
Let me suggest that this is caused because rallying against Microsoft or rallying
against Mono is a lot easier than rallying against the real problems as we have
sadly found out during today's email exchange.
I expect you to start blogging about the problems that people now face when using
iTunes, iPods, Apple OSX, QuickTime, Flash and demand that Sun drops support
for MPEG-LA coverered technologies in Java Media Framework.
And I also expect you to walk the walk.
Once we see some traction on your side, we will be happy to take your
criticism that we do not live up to Sun's standards. Until then, I believe that
we are doing the best that we can to strike a balance between interoperability,
access to content and free software.
I have been writing free software for 16 years, and over the years I have put
my money and my time where my mouth is. I use the Linux desktop every day
(only use Windows to test Mono interoperability) and unlike you and Matt, I
do not have the option to run all that proprietary software that makes your
computing experience better on Windows and Mac, I have to cope with what
I have, and that is why we strategically worked on Moonlight, because we felt that
we were going to need it.
Miguel.
Simon Phipps
in your angry diatribe (I'm a bit surprised you're ignoring all that
I am doing with Java, Solaris and the rest of Sun's portfolio, and I
am amazed you think you know what systems I have humming on my desk
here) for me to risk a public reply, it would set off all sorts of
threads I doubt either of us have time for.
Miguel de Icaza
I'll have to call a truce here, Miguel - rather too much ad-hominem
in your angry diatribe (I'm a bit surprised you're ignoring all that
I am doing with Java, Solaris and the rest of Sun's portfolio, and I
am amazed you think you know what systems I have humming on my desk
here) for me to risk a public reply, it would set off all sorts of
threads I doubt either of us have time for.
I do not ignore all that you are doing with Java and OpenSolaris, I think you are doing great, and I think it goes without saying that without people like you inside the machine things would not change.
What I take an issue with is that you are taking shots at us, the kinds of shots that I do not take at your own projects and employer inconsistencies, because I rather give people the benefit of the doubt. I like to think that we are all fighting the good fight, and that we want things to change and improve in the same direction. Are we there yet? No, but we hope we can get there, and in our journey certain shortcuts will be taken, and certain concessions are taking place.
And just like I do not expect Sun and your own projects to have 100% RMS "stamp of approval" I expect people to give us the same benefit of the doubt, and work with us, instead of against us. I rather have cordial relations with others. Live and let live kind of thing, an attitude that I would expect from you, as you are a highly visible spokesperson in the open source world.
The issue that I have is that your post continues to misrepresent Moonlight, continues to not be updated with any follow ups with the information that we have found and it continues to be used by third parties as a "good analysis" of Moonlight, which it is not.
You are correct in that I have two kinds of criticism to your post: one set are the "issues", and another set are the double standards (do as I say, not as I do). Am happy to address the first set of issues, and I think we have here reached again the conclusion that "patents suck". And for you to address the second issue, I explained on my email what I expected you to do (the long list), alternatively, you could correct your blog post with actual factual data and explain your readers that after all Silverlight/moonlight license is not any worse than any other technology in main use today.
I still believe we are on the same side, and like you, am not sure that there is much juice that is going to come out of this orange.
Miguel.
Webmink
On Sep 9, 2007, at 20:48, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
>The issue that I have is that your post continues to misrepresent Moonlight,
> continues to not be updated with any follow ups with the information that we
> have found and it continues to be used by third parties as a "good analysis"
> of Moonlight, which it is not.
It is not comparative of Silverlight with any other technology either
and I don't intend to extend it to do so. I believe I've corrected
everything that I think needs correcting; feel free to tell me by
personal e-mail what you think is missing. I'll not be turning into an
advertisement of your work, no matter how angry you get about points
it does not make :-)
> You are correct in that I have two kinds of criticism to your post: one set are
> the "issues", and another set are the double standards (do as I say, not as I do).
> Am happy to address the first set of issues, and I think we have here reached
> again the conclusion that "patents suck".
And software patents need a remedy beyond Novell offering haven. I've
been working on that issue, which is why patent non-assert covenants
are becoming common. Which of course is not sufficient.
There's another issue that I can see you're not happy to consider, to
do with ecosystems, which was the actual point of my blog posting. As
for double-standards; you have no idea, so please stop pretending you
do, it diminishes you to avoid the issues by resorting to ad hominem.
As you say, not a lot of goodness emerging here so I don't intend to
continue this thread beyond this posting.
S.
Miguel de Icaza
It is not comparative of Silverlight with any other technology either
and I don't intend to extend it to do so. I believe I've corrected
everything that I think needs correcting; feel free to tell me by
personal e-mail what you think is missing. I'll not be turning into an
advertisement of your work, no matter how angry you get about points
it does not make :-)
Nobody is asking you to turn it into an advertisement for my work. I already explained a number of times what I expect from you.
There's another issue that I can see you're not happy to consider, to
do with ecosystems, which was the actual point of my blog posting. As
for double-standards; you have no idea, so please stop pretending you
do, it diminishes you to avoid the issues by resorting to ad hominem.
You seem confused, I agreed with that point of your for a long time. You might want to review my comments on this thread, I admitted it was sub-optimal and presented my perspective.
And we have different opinions there. You ask people to fight the good fight, but yet, you are not willing to join it yourself. So color me skeptical when someone sheds crocodile tears over it.
And before you label that as "ad-hominem" attack, explain to me how the accusation that you raise against me, the very one that gave the subject for your blog entry, does not apply to Java, the technology that you promote. Unless Java has removed or pledged to drop support for mp3 and h.264 am having trouble digesting how Silverlight is a "lure" into the trap, but Java is not.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Miguel
Webmink
On Sep 10, 2:28 am, "Miguel de Icaza" <miguel.de.ic...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> And we have different opinions there. You ask people to fight the good
> fight, but yet, you are not willing to join it yourself. So color me
> skeptical when someone sheds crocodile tears over it.
You're trying to get me into an argument over what computer systems
and software I use personally. You have no idea, so please stop the
accusations. I've led Java and Solaris into Free software, for
goodness sake, how exactly am I "not joining ".
> And before you label that as "ad-hominem" attack, explain to me how the
> accusation that you raise against me, the very one that gave the subject for
> your blog entry, does not apply to Java, the technology that you promote.
> Unless Java has removed or pledged to drop support for mp3 and h.264 am
> having trouble digesting how Silverlight is a "lure" into the trap, but Java
> is not.
Silverlight /is/ the trap Miguel. Java is not, any more, since anyone
can take the source code and do what they please with it (it's over at
http://openjdk.java.net/). With a certain symmetry, that's what my
original blog post was about and that is what I believe we're agreeing
to differ over.
S.
M. David Peterson
I do not ignore all that you are doing with Java and OpenSolaris, I think you are doing great, and I think it goes without saying that without people like you inside the machine things would not change.
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
Webmink
OK, I investigated. It turns out we wanted nothing to do with MPEG-
LA's scheme. However, we did hold a material patent and something had
to be done about it. We decided we would set in place a reciprocal
patent non-assert covenant - you can use our patent in MPEG-J as long
as you don't assert your patents on MPEG-J against us. You can see
this in the final licensing release from MPEG-LA here:
http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news3580.html
where it says:
> For MPEG-J, a non-assert under applicable patent claims will be available
> without the payment of royalties, in return for a mutual non-assert from the
> licensee under essential MPEG-J patents only.
It's not at all clear though and I am going to take action to get it
cleaned up since I suspect MPEG-LA are trying to conceal the fact that
MPEG-J does not require payment. I'm grateful that you have shown me
that MPEG-LA are representing Sun as being part of the pool; we're
not, and in fact we have made a Free software friendly non-assert. No
milking.
S.
Miguel de Icaza
Silverlight /is/ the trap Miguel. Java is not, any more, since anyone
can take the source code and do what they please with it (it's over at
http://openjdk.java.net/). With a certain symmetry, that's what my
original blog post was about and that is what I believe we're agreeing
to differ over.
I see, my mistake. The trap is Silverlight, not Moonlight.
Miguel.
Webmink
On Sep 8, 10:25 pm, lupus <illu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I said what the mpegla group says, that Sun is part of the group
> of companies that is preventing free software users from using the
> codecs,
> see above. Until Sun provides a free license for its patents, it's
> part of the milking companies.
Just wanted to make sure you'd seen what I posted in reply to Miguel
elsewhere, that it turns out MPEG-LA is wrong to claim Sun is part of
the patent pool. Sun has in fact made a patent non-assert covenant for
the patent in question and does not get paid by the patent pool. You'd
never guess that from what MPEG LA says though. I'm investigating how
to get the misrepresentation stopped.
S.
lupus
> OK, I investigated. It turns out we wanted nothing to do with MPEG-
> LA's scheme. However, we did hold a material patent and something had
> to be done about it. We decided we would set in place a reciprocal
> patent non-assert covenant - you can use our patent in MPEG-J as long
> as you don't assert your patents on MPEG-J against us. You can see
> this in the final licensing release from MPEG-LA here:http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news3580.html
>From your wording it looks like the Sun non-assert is for the benefit
of the mpegla members. This would be still preventing free software
implementations, so my main point remains. I'll give you more time to
dig up an actual non-assert covenant that would be of some use to free
software developers and users,
I hope you'll be able to clarify that or at least change Sun's
existing stance on the issue.
lupus