From that blog entry:

Dailymotion has transcoded over 300,000 videos to the free Ogg Theora format, which will play without the need for plugins in the latest free software web browsers. Dailymotion is among the world’s largest video streaming sites, making this a major advance for Ogg Theora format.

The FSF also has a web page up as part of the Play Ogg! campaign. Ogg formats, Theora for video and Vorbis for audio, are important, because they have no patent restrictions and comparable, if not superior, quality as patented formats. There has been some controversy about the removal of Ogg Theora as the specified format for the HTML 5 <video> tag. 

As of June 29, 2009, the WHATWG summarizes the situation as such:

Apple refuses to implement Ogg Theora in Quicktime by default (as used by Safari), citing lack of hardware support and an uncertain patent landscape.

Google has implemented H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome, but cannot provide the H.264 codec license to third-party distributors of Chromium, and have indicated a belief that Ogg Theora’s quality-per-bit is not yet suitable for the volume handled by YouTube.

Opera refuses to implement H.264, citing the obscene cost of the relevant patent licenses.

Mozilla refuses to implement H.264, as they would not be able to obtain a license that covers their downstream distributors.

Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support <video> at all.

The future is uncertain for Ogg Theora – the thing that will determine its success is popular adoption, which some corporate interests seem intent on blocking.

In Which Your Noble Hero Braves Market-Speak to Deliver a Story

The webcast “Making IT Work in the Real World” runs about an hour, and a pretty bland hour at that.
I confess I skipped through quite a bit of the droning – I’m not really as brave as the little headlines make out sometimes.

There are a few slides that were of interest, because I think they show a darker side of the Novell-Microsoft collaboration. Keep in mind this was a pure PR fluff piece, so Novell and Microsoft had plenty of time to prepare and the hosts were not there to play any sort of investigative role. It was pretty much open mic night for your favorite corporate spokesmen.

Let’s see what they had to say!

In Which a Bit of That Good Old-Fashioned FUD is Spread around

Here’s a slide where the gentleman from Novell talked up the 3 pillars of value that the Novell-Microsoft collaboration delivers:

"Intellectual Property"

There’s that good old “peace of mind” codeword that Microsoft and Novell love so much to throw around. How does one reconcile Novell’s statement that the “agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property” with the constant marketing that only Novell can offer “IP peace of mind” and the bullet point that “Microsoft and Novell” provide “patent coverage”?

A little fancy dancing, perhaps?

See this fellow here? He’s my bestest friend

Here’s a slide where Novell plays up the exclusivity of their collaboration with Microsoft:

"Only" Novell can offer you this?

In the blue box we are told that “SLES” is the only Linux distribution officially supported by MSFT on Hyper-V.
This is strange, because both Microsoft and Red Hat, when talking about Red Hat on Hyper-V say:

Q5: How do customers get support for the validated solutions? Who do they call?

A5: Customers with valid support agreements with both companies call either Microsoft or Red Hat to have their issues resolved. If the first vendor contacted cannot resolve the issue they will work with the other vendor to come to a resolution for the mutual customer.

I mean it sure looks to me like that is Microsoft officially supporting Red Hat.
I know I’m not a captain of the industry, but I am lettered and can even sign my name if someone tells me where to make the mark.

I like the wording of the green box, because I suspect it might be technically true at this exact moment in time, but we do know (again from Microsoft) that the folks at Red Hat tell me that they’ll “provide WHQL [Windows Hardware Quality Labs] drivers for a variety of Windows Server versions.” So not only will you get cooperative technical support, you’ll also get high-performing enlightened VMs.

And, come to think of it, wasn’t the whole purpose of the drivers Microsoft just released to provide enlightened support at the kernel level?

So yeah basically this entire slide is, to put it politely, inaccurate.
At best it is half inaccurate-now and half soon-to-be-inaccurate.

Hit ‘em with the stinger!

Finally, one last slide that I thought was funny:

You're calling *this* a feature?

OK, so we already have shown that SUSE Linux is not the only Linux distribution supported by Microsoft. I don’t want to touch endorsed, too vague and I’m not sure that’s really something to lay claim to, anyway!

I also found it funny that Novell asserts Linux is “FOS”. What’s that all about? Is it to distance Novell from “FLOSS”, or is “FOS” some common acronym that I just haven’t ran across? I was pretty sure I’ve read the whole internets, but I guess I could have missed a page or two.

This was originally posted at mono-nono.com

ConsortiumInfo.com has a very informative blog focused on standards and the standardization process, with a strong understanding of Open Source. The author, Mr. Andy Updegrove also serves on the board of the recently formed Open Source for America.

If you are interested in hardcore standardization wonkery, I suggest you check out the blog!

End Software patents has a wiki page already set up and says the arguments “will be used as a base for drafting work in the coming weeks and months as well as in the upcoming Bilski case and maybe the New Zealand legislative proposal, and other Current opportunities and dangers.”

Here’s  a couple I added:

• Companies in the software industry are banding together for the sole purpose of patent defense (ex: OIN), illustrating the system is broken.
• In the United States, the Constitutional purpose of patents is to “promote the progress of science and useful arts”, but there are numerous studies and reports showing that software patents retard progress, and have a great cost to the economy.

In a recent Computerworld UK blog entry, Glyn Moody takes Microsoft’s Jason Matusox to task for conflating “balance” with “open”. I won’t re-hash the points Mr. Moody makes so read his article too!

Basically, Mr. Matusox laments how Open standards are “overbalanced” in favor of standard implementors, and someone is insisting that standards must have “no IP restrictions”.

Notwithstanding the laughable idea of Microsoft pretense to have any interest at all in a fair, open, or “balanced” standard process, there are some interesting points revealed in Mr. Matusox’s article. The Exacting Task of Extracting Signal from Noise is once again assumed by your Humble Host.

I’m going to need more hay for this here strawman!

Mr. Matusox sets up a nice little premise:

I think that things like defensive suspension are really important.

[... A long bit about using one patent in an un-related "aphrodisiac" field ...]

But the “no IP restrictions” concept of “open standards” does away with too much. Out of balance.

Now, I put this to you: who exactly is arguing that “defensive suspension” and “no IP restrictions” are necessary or required for standardization?

Most patent grants have language that the patent grant applies to the implementation of the standard, thus covering Mr. Matusox’s aphrodisiac. Most patent grants also have language that the grant is revoked for those parties that bring patent action against the granter, thus covering Mr. Matusox’s “defensive suspension”. Both together, of course, cover the “no IP restrictions”.

So who is arguing for “no IP restrictions”? Red Hat isn’t. Google isn’t. “No IP restrictions” would mean that all related copyrights, trademarks and patents would have to be released into the public domain. Is someone out there seriously proposing that?

Business as usual

Here’s the thing I really want to draw attention to; in a follow-up post - where he is careful to repeat the “no limitations on IP” canard – Mr. Matusox says he “was writing about “open” issues back in March of 2005.”

Further back then that, actually. Mr. Matusox, and Microsoft in general, have been testing this angle since at least 2001-02. Here is Mr. Matusox back in 2002 defending Craig Mundie from 2001 who was at that time trying desperately to directly equate “Shared Source” with “Open Source”:

As a result of Microsofts statement of position today, many people will attempt to say that Shared Source is Microsofts failed attempt at being an Open Source Company. This could not be a more incorrect statement. Shared Source is Open Source.

The number of people outside of Microsoft that think “Shared Source is Open Source” may be closest thing we have ever observed in nature to a perfect zero, but it shows how clearly did Microsoft tries to conflate “Open” with whatever other term or criteria they felt suited them, and that they continue to do so today.

Just wanted to show they’ve been beating the “this not-Open thing is really Open” for at least 8 years now, right up until today. Handy to keep that sort of thing in mind when the Redmond Astroturfers take the field at the bottom of the inning.

(This is why I need a artist partner. Someone please work up a “Redmond Astroturfers” SVG ala the ’95-99 Houston Astros logo!)

More business as usual

This is not a Microsoft-specific failing: you’ll continually see companies that want all the rewards of Free, of Open, of community, with none of the responsibilities. If they must take on any of the responsibilities, it will be the legal or absolute minimum requirements.

If there is a way to twist the word Open into the meaning Proprietary, you can be sure some company is out there bending away right now.

Presenting the Pirate Party Position

Here are the relevant bits:

The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication. Today’s copyright terms are simply absurd. Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead. No film studio or record company bases its investment decisions on the off-chance that the product would be of interest to anyone a hundred years in the future. The commercial life of cultural works is staggeringly short in today’s world. If you haven’t made your money back in the first one or two years, you never will. A five years copyright term for commercial use is more than enough. Non-commercial use should be free from day one.

We also want a complete ban on DRM technologies, and on contract clauses that aim to restrict the consumers’ legal rights in this area. There is no point in restoring balance and reason to the legislation, if at the same time we continue to allow the big media companies to both write and enforce their own arbitrary laws.

Sounds pretty good on an initial read, no?
The idea that copyright should be limited in length to some amount is nothing novel, though reasonable people can differ on the exact length. “Reasonable people” does not mean media conglomerates. There is a difference between considering 5 or 14 years, and 14 or 120 years. The former is a matter for honest debate, the latter a dark mockery of the very concept of copyright.

Stallman Sees Something Surprising

Because the current concept of Free Software relies on using copyright against itself, anything that affects copyright necessarily affects Free Software.
Stallman, naturally, sees this immediately and raises some problems.

There can be non-copyright restrictions

Patents, EULAs, NDAs, and other such extra-copyright measures can restrict software just as copyright can. It will do little good to restore sanity to copyright, if proprietary vendors simply turn to other measures to restrict user freedom.

Some proprietary developers entertain EULA clauses most vile (and of legal questionability), restricting how you may use or even what you can say about the software. These extra-copyright restrictions must be removed as well.

“Freed” proprietary software is not Free Software

The major strength of Free Software is the availability of source code, necessary to study, change and improve the software. Availability of source code also prevents proprietary vendors from simply installing a “killswitch” in the software that renders it non-functional the day after copyright expires.

If the law were such that “killswitches” were recognized as a form of DRM – which the Pirate Party calls for a complete ban upon, this risk may be mitigated.

Consider how coming out of copyright might affect a film or piece of music: once the work is in the public domain, anyone may re-use or modify any portion of it. But, compare that to proprietary software in the public domain with no source code: the user can not re-use or modify any portion of it. Because of the nature of software, it is the freedom of source code that is important, not the freedom of the object code.

Now consider that Free Software would lose all protection on its source code after 5 years, after which proprietary vendors could appropriate the work, but without having to release their own source code! The effect would not be equal between Free Software and closed software.  Proprietary vendors would benefit greatly from all the Free Software moved into the public domain, without making an equal contribution to society by releasing any source code at all!

Resolutions Reviewed

There are two proposed methods to deal with these issues; one from Stallman, and one from within the Pirate Party.

Stallman’s suggestion is to hold proprietary software source code in escrow, and then release it into the public domain after 5 years. In this case, it is true that Free Software would lose its protections after the 5 year period, but so would proprietary software, so this seems fair.

The issue I see here is proprietary vendors playing games about what constitutes the “source code” of a given program. All included libraries? Must the code be un-obfuscated? We can be sure that some proprietary vendors will not go gently into that dark night.

The suggestion from within the Pirate Party is that copyright length is extended as freedoms are extended to the user. The more free a work, the longer a period of copyright it enjoys. This offers the advantages of being non-material specific – it would apply to anything, not just software – and it adds a real market value on Freedom.

The issue I see here is the need to codify how Free a work is, which is not an easy process. The GPL is constantly under attack from commercial entities that want all the rewards of Free Software with none of the responsibilities; directly tying copyright to Freedom would only increase that problem.

The Issue to be solved

The real issue here is that if you use your enemy’s strength against him, what happens when you take that strength away? Because Free Software’s legal basis is firmly rooted in the strength of copyright, if copyright is weakened, then so is Free Software.

Of the two proposed solutions, I lean towards the idea of tying length of copyright with Freedom to Users. I like that it doesn’t not carve out an exception for Free Software – because I think the ideals behind Free Software need not be limited to software. I also like the idea of codifying into law how Free something is – though I fully realize what a political issue that would be and how hard proprietary companies would work to subvert it.

A third path would be to find or create some way to enforce the Four Freedoms without relying on copyright law to do so. Is there a different area of law that could be used? I am unaware of any non-copyright-based Free Software ideas. If there were no copyright, could the Four Freedoms be enforced?

Of course, it is unlikely that copyright will be reduced to 50 years – much less 5 years – so the point is largely academic.
That being said, I find it interesting to consider ways Free Software might be enforced without copyright.