Should the Codec Pack be on the repo?

[Rockthesmurf]

@WizardStan I have personally had two units, both of which didn't work with Wifi, in both cases it wasn't so slow speeds, but more problems actually establishing a connection (and if it does manage to establish, shortly after disconnects requiring reboots of Pandora and/or access point). So my opinion is probably a little weighted against relying on Wifi. In terms of estimates of the number of people really affected, they really are going to be estimates, I'm not sure if I've ever been vocal on the boards yet have had two devices with problems. I know you tried to take this into account, but it is hard to know whether it is nearer 5% or 25%.

 

[WizardStan]

I know you tried to take this into account, but it is hard to know whether it is nearer 5% or 25%.

Yeah, I tried to estimate around 10%, but even if it's as high as 50% there's still no problem in doing it that way either. It's not like that would become the sole method of installing the codec pack, it'd just be an easier method for those that don't suffer wifi problems. If you've got wifi problems you'd still need to manually download the pack unfortunately, but I don't think everyone should have to suffer as a result. Also there's going to be people that don't have access to wifi at all, so they'd still need the manual process.Point is to make it easier for as many people as possible, even if it can't be made perfect for everybody I think.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

@WizardStan: Agreed on all accounts. For ease of use, #1 have it already installed, #2 have it download on first launch where possible, #3 do nothing. It seems #1 is hampered with legal nonsense, #3 is what we currently do, so #2 would be a nice compromise.

 

[levi]

None of the flavours on Linux I've used do that; perhaps it reflects on my choice of distros, but I've always had to manually add the restricted repository, then locate the package name and choose to install it. Just having it on the repo and doing nothing with it automatically would already be simpler than that. Mainstream x86 Linux distributions could technically choose to automatically download and install the package, yet they don't seem to.


Perhaps the issue for them is that many Linux people seem to have moral objections to patent encumbered codecs and code, or perhaps they've decided that most Linux people don't need those codecs (I've never installed the codec pack on my Pandora for example), or perhaps there's a legal defense in making the installation system completely free, yet flexible enough to be subverted into installing non-free code. I wouldn't have any way of knowing to be honest.

 

[Surkow]

None of the flavours on Linux I've used do that; perhaps it reflects on my choice of distros, but I've always had to manually add the restricted repository, then locate the package name and choose to install it. Just having it on the repo and doing nothing with it automatically would already be simpler than that. Mainstream x86 Linux distributions could technically choose to automatically download and install the package, yet they don't seem to.


Perhaps the issue for them is that many Linux people seem to have moral objections to patent encumbered codecs and code, or perhaps they've decided that most Linux people don't need those codecs (I've never installed the codec pack on my Pandora for example), or perhaps there's a legal defense in making the installation system completely free, yet flexible enough to be subverted into installing non-free code. I wouldn't have any way of knowing to be honest.

It is not about moral objections towards patent encumbered codecs, it is about avoiding being sued out of existence for shipping non-free codecs. Letting users download codecs from a third party is a much safer option. It doesn't matter if the codecs are Open Source, licensing organisations like MPEG-LA will simply sue you for shipping patent encumbered codecs.

 

[levi]

So it's the latter, rather than either of the former reasons according to you (and others to be fair).  Well, that's good to know

So what does that say about the idea of making the Pandora offer to automatically download it?  And what does it say about moving it from one hostname pointing to a server to another pointing to the same server where it's more discoverable.  Is it a reason not to put the codec pack on the repo?

 

[Surkow]

So it's the latter, rather than either of the former reasons according to you (and others to be fair).  Well, that's good to know

So what does that say about the idea of making the Pandora offer to automatically download it?  And what does it say about moving it from one hostname pointing to a server to another pointing to the same server where it's more discoverable.  Is it a reason not to put the codec pack on the repo?

Any official endorsement by Openpandora makes it not legal to host it (assuming they see the repository as a vehicle to sell a commercial product like the Pandora). So it's best a for a third party to host it.

 

[Neelix]

The codec pack has always been hosted on ED's server.   putting it on the repo would just provide a new way for users to access it if they choose to.

- Neelix

 

[comradekingu]

How about we just forget about the whole idea and pretend it never existed? Im seeing problems and little to no benefit.

It adds complexity, it is a pain in the ass to deal with, it is legally sketchy, etc etc.

Since its all bundled together it cant just be called -ugly and then thats it, one would have to state the individual license for each separate component?

Is it not possible to download just what you want with opkg?

Edit: I wonder how many downloads it has..?

 

[Neelix]

How about we just forget about the whole idea and pretend it never existed? Im seeing problems and little to no benefit.

It adds complexity, it is a pain in the ass to deal with, it is legally sketchy, etc etc.

Since its all bundled together it cant just be called -ugly and then thats it, one would have to state the individual license for each separate component?

Is it not possible to download just what you want with opkg?

Edit: I wonder how many downloads it has..?

Y'know the codec pack isn't just going to vanish just because it has no relevance in your own limited worldview.  It does have relevance to other people and will continue to have relevance to those people for some time to come.  The question here isn't "Should there be a codec pack?" it's "Should the codec pack be on the repo?"    

Personally I see no reason why it should not be, as I see no difference in the licencing issues between making it available via the web site and making it available via the repo.

- Neelix

 

[_wb_]

Just put it on the repo and make sure the uploader/maintainer is not ED. Then it should be fine - worst thing that will happen is some patent troll makes ED remove it from his server.

I dislike software patents a lot, but I refuse to just try to avoid breaching them. The patents are silly, and they should just not exist in the first place. Patent trolls get most of their power from the threat to sue, but they don't actually sue that often. It's easier to collect license fees by making threats than to actually sue and risk that the patent doesn't hold up in court because it is silly to begin with.

So my attitude is: fuck you, sue me. I'm not going to self-censor the type of programs I can or cannot write or use. It's impossible to not violate any software patents if you write more than two lines of code, so I'm not going to bother to even try. The whole idea of software patents is as ridiculous as patenting colors, mathematical formulas, DNA or the wheel. Patent offices have allowed all of that, but that doesn't mean that we have to stop using wheels or reproducing our DNA. No, we just have to refuse to be scared by those patents, ignore them, put the burden on the patent trolls to sue, and if they sue, either win those court cases or start a public revolt to change the legal system.

 

[thatgui]

Just put it on the repo and make sure the uploader/maintainer is not ED. Then it should be fine - worst thing that will happen is some patent troll makes ED remove it from his server.

Which usually comes with a expense allowance (usually some hundreds of euros), do we really need to take that risk for some gain in comfort ?

 

[comradekingu]

Neelix, I asked just as much as you did, and i shared my view. As for the legality being the same, yes. But i suppose nobody cared to consult someone in the know the first time around either.

Worst case its "one license per download" or something like that. When we facilitate the playing of mp3s and pretend like its mandatory, we are giving legitimacy to mp3 and giving it more of a foothold. Which in turn is money in the bank for MPEG-LA.

 

[Neelix]

No-one is pretending mp3 is in any way mandatory.  That being said, making the codec unavailable on the pandora won't do anything to reduce the use of MP3 as a format.  It would also restrict the freedom of (not to mention irritate) those who have their existing music collections in mp3 format to use the device as they prefer.

I value my freedom to choose to use a licenced format.  I value my freedom to choose to use proprietary software.  I respect your right to choose not to do so, but I also ask that you respect my right to make my own decision.  You may prefer that everyone uses "free as in FSF" software for everything, but it's not your place (or mine)  to make things harder for those who have other viewpoints in an effort to 'bring them around.'

-Neelix

 

[_wb_]

Just put it on the repo and make sure the uploader/maintainer is not ED. Then it should be fine - worst thing that will happen is some patent troll makes ED remove it from his server.

Which usually comes with a expense allowance (usually some hundreds of euros), do we really need to take that risk for some gain in comfort ?

Expense allowance? What? Are you talking about what would be the most likely result of getting sued and settling? I was talking about the more likely scenario in which ED just gets a warning letter telling him that they will sue him if he doesn't remove the patent-infringing files from his server.

The repo allows anonymous uploads by anyone. If you're worried about taking risks, there are far worse things that could be uploaded than some FOSS implementation of potentially allegedly patent-infringing software that may or may not be legal to distribute or use in some countries.

 

[thatgui]

Expense allowance? What? Are you talking about what would be the most likely result of getting sued and settling? I was talking about the more likely scenario in which ED just gets a warning letter telling him that they will sue him if he doesn't remove the patent-infringing files from his server.

Usually around here the lawyer that "enforces" such copyright claims want's a compensation for his work, and I doubt the copyright holder wants to pay for that.

The repo allows anonymous uploads by anyone. If you're worried about taking risks, there are far worse things that could be uploaded than some FOSS implementation of potentially allegedly patent-infringing software that may or may not be legal to distribute or use in some countries.

Why should this count as an argument? The repo itself is already quite problematic, if it gets the attention of someone with the a strong urge to have it adhere to german laws.

 

[mcobit]

Btw. How do they do it with raspbmc on the raspberry pi? It can play mp3 out of the box and iirc there is a mirror on the servers of the raspi foundation.


Shouldn't that be seen as the same case?

 

[pmprog]

I thought you had to buy the MPEG packs for the Pi?

The bit I don't get is this: Aren't both server's (Repo, and the current host) under ED's ownership?

 

[WizardStan]

The bit I don't get is this: Aren't both server's (Repo, and the current host) under ED's ownership?

It doesn't matter where it's hosted or downloaded from, it matters where it's going. Ubuntu and it's descendants all host the MP3 codecs on the same server, you simply need to activate the repo before you can install them. It is therefore on the user to know whether they are legally allowed (either because of their location or because they have purchased a license) to use the codec. The host is effectively in the clear. From what I recall some distros, like Mint, don't even require it be activated, it simply is right from the start, you just need to install it, and that seems to be done automatically when you install some other packages as well.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

It seems so arbitrary to me whether it is hosted on a server or not, I am not disagreeing from a legal point of view (as I have no clue on the legal side of it), but it just seems stupid that there is a difference on whether it automatically gets downloaded on first boot, or comes already installed on the device. It is like it could be on the device by default, but stored inside an encrypted file, and then on first boot the user is asked whether they wish to decrypt/install it (with a legal disclaimer) or delete it. The end result is still the same, but from a legal technicality point of view it sounds like the fact it comes on the device in any form is a no-no.

I guess it if this sort of thing is the norm on Linux distributions, then anyone from a Linux background will probably not find any of this unusual.

Anyway, it sounds like having it on the repository is the way to go. As it (maybe) needs to be done unofficially, is someone going to volunteer to perform the upload?