Real to Offer Open Source Windows Media for Linux 228
cpugeniusmv writes to tell us News.com is reporting that RealNetworks plans to release an open source method to allow Linux users to play Windows Media files. Currently Linux users are able to play the two main Windows Media formats (wmv and wma) but only if they install closed-source modules. The ability to launch this initiative comes from a recent licensing deal between RealNetworks and Microsoft and the antitrust settlement against Microsoft.
Re:already there? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:already there? (Score:5, Informative)
You will need to check out the latest ffmpeg svn and compile it tho.
Re:already there? (Score:2, Informative)
and afaik, it can't handle wmv10 drm.
ffmpeg already have this in the works! (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah so, move along... nothing to see here.
Re:already there? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:That'll be great (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Licencing issues... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Licencing issues... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:already there? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:False Summary (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Licencing issues... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Satan: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Helix Player? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Satan: (Score:5, Informative)
I assume your misunderstanding is the result of the situation with the LZH-algorithm, or in practical terms, the GIF format. Thos, now expired patents only covered the LZH encoding not decoding, hence one could make, use and distribute a decoder but not an encoder. However this was just the special situation with regard to these 2 patents covering this particular algorithm, i.e. they were luckily (from the patent holder's point of view, unluckily) worded in such a way that they only covered the encoder.
Nota bene: Yes, there were indeed two patents covering exactly the same algorithm, one was held in its latter days by Unisys and was the more notorious one due to Unisys' active enforcement. The other one was held by IBM and just recently expired but IBM never actively enforced it (It would've probably fallen due to prior art anyway but it does illustrate the utter stupidity of the USPTO specifically and the patent system, especially with regard to software, generally).
Re:Satan: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That'll be great (Score:3, Informative)
You -- the rightful recipient of an encrypted message -- have to have all three of the following: the encrypted file, the decryption key and the player {which contains the decryption algorithm}. Without the file you have nothing to watch / listen to, without the key you have no way to decrypt it and without the player you have no way to view / hear it. If you had the source code to the player, you could find out where the key is obtained from {it might be in the encrypted file or it might be in the player itself} and use the decryption algorithm independently to decrypt the file.
Of course, reverse-engineering a binary-only program is possible -- it's just not easy. DRM is fundamentally flawed {in the worst case, it can be defeated with cameras and microphones}. This is likely to persist until we get schemes that perform the final decryption in your brain.