Comments on: Microsoft is Paid for Ubuntu-based Dell PCs

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:06:09 +0000

Some of the codecs acquired are Microsoft codecs and I know for a fact that Canonical negotiated this (not necessarily directly with Microsoft). Red Hat was in a similar situation whilst working on a desktop product.

By: Victor Soliz

Victor Soliz — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:11:10 +0000

proprietary codecs BAD and all, but how do we know MS is being paid for them? They are not the only ones capable of distributing codecs.

By: mpz

mpz — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:33:06 +0000

Codec licensing is the ‘convenience’ back-door which has finally become a way for proprietary software companies to tax GNU systems. And because of the over-arching commercial power of the USA, even countries where software patents are not legal are still being charged in this way.

For example gstreamer seems to becoming the de-facto standard for multi-media GNU desktops. And it is a direct conduit for these licensed codecs. Fedora prompts you to buy them when it tries to play a file, for example.

It is hard not to be pessimistic. So much hard work on a free system is being un-done by a little convenience in playing some silly media files. Defeat is being clutched from the jaws of victory. And although completely free formats exist such as ogg’s, without the major media providers supporting them (or perhaps isv’s providing the necessary middleware which supports it), they will never be more than niche.