Linux.com

Feature: News

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

By Bruce Byfield on August 14, 2008 (7:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Despite all its advances, GNU/Linux remains weak in its support for proprietary audio and video codecs. Because these codecs are often encumbered by patents, distributions must choose either to include support of questionable legality or else exclude it altogether. In the middle of this controversy sits Fluendo, a Catalan company of about 50 employees that is a main contributor to projects like GStreamer, and supports open formats, but also offers licensed, proprietary codecs such as Windows Media Video and MPEG4. While many would argue that this dual position is necessary, it's one that sometimes creates an unasy balance for the company, says Muriel Moscardini, Fluendo's sale director.

Fluendo was founded by Julien Moutte and Pascal Pegaz with the intent of making free software "a real competitor" to proprietary companies offering streaming video, says Moscardini. "That means working solutions for the B2B market and work on all legal constraints a company may have while distributing software" -- in other words, offering video streaming as a service and obtaining the legal right to use popular codecs.

It was not so much that Fluendo set out to offer support for both free and proprietary codecs as the fact that doing so seemed a necessary business move. According to Moscardini, Fluendo's policy has always been "First, we define the products and the business model, and then we develop and release [products] under the appropriate license. So, for the codecs, some of them have to be proprietary (such as H.264 and Windows Media) and others can be open sourced (Theora and Dirac)."

Today, the result is a mixture of products. Flumotion Streaming Service, one of Fluendo's flagship products, has a basic version available under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and an advanced version with proprietary codecs. Other products, such as Cortado, a Java-streaming applet for Ogg Theora, and the Elisa Media Center are released entirely under the GPL, while licensed codecs are available for €7 ($11). In addition, Fluendo offers a non-free MP3 decoder as a free download -- in order, Moscardini says, to "provide a legal way for free software zealots to convert their MP3 content to free formats."

Talking about this mixture of licenses, Moscardini says, "Fluendo has worked hard to be able to convince the patent holders to give the rights to distribute the codecs for an entire operating system legally. It was one of the challenges to be able to make legal multimedia on open source solutions a reality."

Fluendo views this effort as a benefit, but, unsurprisingly, such dealings with proprietary codecs do not go uncriticized in the free and open source software (FOSS) community. "We have regular discussions with the community about our solutions," Moscardini says diplomatically. "Fluendo is a company composed by people involved in the community, and we always go hand in hand with the community. It is normal that we don't always agree all together. The patent situation in the multimedia field is very diffciult to understand, and we have to satisify as many customers as we can, whether they be end users from the community or big corporations." She insists that, "Globally, Fluendo is welcome, and considered as an open source-friendly company."

Certainly, Fluendo employees have close ties with the community. "The majority of the 50 people in our company are developers full involved in the open source community," Moscardini says, listing GStreamer, Elisa, Totem, and Xiph among the projects in which company employees are involved. The company also attends and helps to sponsor FOSS events, such as GUADEC.

"The community has always recognized that Fluendo as very supportive, even if selling non-open source software," Moscardini says.

Another sign of Fluendo's good relationship with the FOSS community is the inclusion of Codec Buddy (a.k.a. Codeina) in the Fedora distribution. Although Fedora does not ship non-free software, Codec Buddy is a way for those who want proprietary codecs to download Fluendo's legal versions of them -- a sort of harm reduction solution to the problem that enables the use of proprietary codecs while minimizing the potential effects. Codeinia is now also available in other distributions, including Mandriva.

Moscardini describes Codeina as a tool "to help Linux users to understand why some plugins are missing in their distribution. And then we wanted to help them download solutions in the simplest way. So Codeina automatically pops up when you try to read a file and don't have a good codec. Then you can choose the solution you want."

Despite such controversies, Moscardini makes clear that Fluendo self-identifies with the FOSS community. "In addition to the philosophy which is present in our daily work as a company, the top management has always believed that there are ways to conduct business based upon free software," she says. "This is the major link between Fluendo and the open source community: we are just part of it, and we want to keep on being part of it. We believe that open source solutions have a great future, and we want to be be one of the players in this future."

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 79.114.180.16] on August 14, 2008 08:25 PM
Just imagine that you start a music player and codec buddy pops up and tells you that you need to purchase a codec - showing you a list of available options(Fluendo being the most affordable). Imagine poor Joe's face when he sees this from an operating system promoting freedom. I for one, don't care that I can get those for *free* from Livna; as far I am concerned codec buddy does more harm than good.

#

Re: Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.44.189.7] on August 14, 2008 09:35 PM
Couldn't agree more - especially when using Linux in a country that hasn't patent issues on the codecs. the 'ugly' libraries work a treat but the new users to linux get kind of tricked to buy the Fluendo codecs. Not the prettiest of solutions and a good money spinner for Fluendo.

#

Re: Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 67.150.9.14] on August 15, 2008 04:58 AM
On the contrary, codec buddy educates the public about how legally entangled software has become. The user can then decide what the legally safe option is. The fact is that no matter how much people want freedom in their software, they still cannot violate the law willy-nilly. People need to learn that legal reform is needed regarding software and media in order for software freedom to be viable.

FOSS should not be promoting criminality. (In the United States, some of the FOSS software codec libraries are illegal.) If anything, Fluendo has made the right choice for users worldwide. They do not deserve to be villified for helping people to comply with their country's laws.

#

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.56.201.180] on August 14, 2008 08:41 PM
It's a very solid article, except for the beginning- GNU/Linux is very well off in the proprietary codec department: except for some of the more obscure MS codecs (lossless WMA comes to mind), FFmpeg has implemented pretty much everything- sadly, many distributions still have very old versions of the libraries and so users don't see the progress, just what isn't there.

#

Article misstates the problem

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 199.164.56.5] on August 14, 2008 09:44 PM
"...GNU/Linux remains weak in its support for proprietary audio and video codecs..."

Excuse me? I think what you meant is: "Proprietary content providers and IP rightsmongers remains weak in their support for GNU/Linux."

Which is not the same thing at all...

#

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 87.203.101.37] on August 14, 2008 10:32 PM
Reading the comments above, makes me think, that most of free software users are more interested in free as in beer software, than free as in speech. So I don't expect companies to support free operating systems in future, what's the point if no one is willing to pay for your product.

#

Re: Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.81.36.123] on August 15, 2008 02:13 AM
You seem to have missed the point. It's not the money, it's the license. The proprietary codecs *CANNOT* be redistributed due to the licensing. If it cannot be redistributed, then it has no value to an open-source company, so why pay for it? Free codecs have been developed specifically to get around these licenses, and open-source developers use them *BECAUSE THEY CAN*.

#

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 63.118.233.100] on August 15, 2008 02:14 PM
Its about ability. If I don't have the ability to use things I own on my OS then I have to toss the OS.

#

Fluendo not stupendo...

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 70.101.63.27] on August 15, 2008 05:00 PM
Operating Systems, regardless of COST, must be OPEN.
If we don't have control of our own computers, someone else does.

If I own the media, and the software is freely available, and legal stuff is all up in the air...
I'm going to PLAY the media.

The codecs are technically not illegal...they gave up trying to enforce a whatever-case.

Who owns the computer? I do. Who owns the media? I do. Who owns the codec? If it's Open Source, I do.

#

Re: Fluendo not stupendo...

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 70.101.63.27] on August 15, 2008 05:02 PM
By the way, who said Fluendo owns the codecs they're selling?!

#

Re: Fluendo not stupendo...

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 192.107.26.131] on August 15, 2008 06:17 PM
[QUOTE]Who owns the codec? If it's Open Source, I do[/QUOTE]

Well, the legal issue doesn't really concern who owns the code. The legal issue concerns what the code does. In other words, implements a patented algorithm. Now, algorithms, mathematical formulae and software (which consists of both) can't be patented in some jurisdictions. If you happen to live in such a jurisdiction, you would be right - you can legally decode your media using software that you legally own.

However, if you happen to live in a jurisdiction that allows and enforces patents on algorithms, mathematical formulae and software, then you have a legal problem. The code - regardless of ownership - violates such a patent and is therefore illegal.

Of course, patent owners generally want popularity - that's how they can make tons of money - so they won't generally go after end-users (who are automatically potential consumers). However, no commercial entity - which most patent owners would qualify as - is entirely predictable. As such, commercial patent owners can - and have, in the past - go after the authors of the software that implements the decoding algorithm, and sometimes also after end-users.

It is always wise to be on the "right" side of the legal fence. Having said that, what one does with one's personal equipment is pretty much personal and any means of extracting information that can work as evidence against a person can very well be viewed as invasions of privacy under most jurisdictions.

It is a legal tight-rope.

#

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.244.125.247] on August 15, 2008 08:57 PM
Why would I "pay" to play an Indeo 5 encoded video clip that "I" produced 5 years ago? Then, after I "pay", I can't play the clip anyway because the 32bit windows DLL won't work on 64bit linux. I think I'll just give some cash or brownies to the ffmpeg gents.

#

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 72.62.185.237] on August 16, 2008 03:36 AM
It should not be legal to distribute information meant for public consumption via proprietary means. More pressure should be applied towards those who do so, forcing those who do to change their ways. I'm sick and tired of trying to view stuff that won't work, and I'm tired of trying to get the latest version of Flash or some other piece of junk to function just so I can conduct daily business or entertainment. This is like forcing people to buy a new car because they need to drive to a different town.

#

Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 83.46.20.251] on August 17, 2008 04:30 PM
'a Catalan company'... bullshit. Catalonia is part of SPAIN.

#

Re: Fluendo walks the line between free and proprietary codecs

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 62.212.109.174] on August 19, 2008 02:14 PM
and California or Florida is part of the USA and you still stay 'a Florida company'. what is your point again ?

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya