MEPIS may be going Ubuntu

[Randy Gloden]

I've started to look or the legal work, and it requires my souls and the 
souls of my kin. Glance at

http://www.dvdcca.org/data/css/CSS_license_ver_1_2.pdf

I will look over it a bit more, however, stipulations like,

“Protected” shall mean a configuration in which a data stream or signal 
is not output except
(1) via encrypted, scrambled, or otherwise secure link or method 
authorized hereunder either
through a device’s or component’s authorized output or to the next 
component or device
which in turn has an authorized output; or (2) directed as uncompressed 
video data to a
graphics subsystem via an internal computer path in a manner consistent 
with Section 6.2 of
the CSS Procedural Specifications. For purposes of this definition, 
authorized outputs and
methods hereunder are those compliant with the requirements contained in 
Section 6.2 of the
CSS Procedural Specifications, including any upgrades or modifications 
thereto adopted in
accordance with Sections 4.2 and 10.7 of this License Agreement. By way 
of example and
not limitation, the following CSS Compliant Products, if so configured, 
would be considered
to be Protected:
(a) CSS Decryption Hardware"

Seem to eliminate the possibility of creating a generic module similar 
to "non-legal" version we have access to at present. This means, we 
couldn't create a module like libdvdcss2 that can be used by the 
different players. It seems a proprietary player would have to be used, 
which stinks up the water yet further.

This point I don't quite understand because, once you install WinDVD in 
the Redmondsoft environment, DVD playback starts working in 
Redmondsofts' media player and every other player on that platform.

It is possible that if someone influential enough could get to the power 
folks in this organization, possibly an alternative licensing scheme 
could be negotiated. A bounty of the size needed would definately be 
better utilized to fill some of the other voids.

If we want to get the pricing, we need to find a souless volanteer to 
follow all this through. The contracts have to be hand delivered by two 
different messagers. And I'm sure the stipulations go on and on and on. 
I should have known that it couldn't be that easy.

For the time being, I believe I will keep my soul.

----------Randy



Paul Sladen wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Randy Gloden wrote:
>  
>
>>I will get pricing and such, though I recognize the futility of the 
>>effort.  The only way to do this and keep everything "Free as in Beer", 
>>would be to strike a deal to license it for the whole community. 
>>Oh well, I give up.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't think you should give up.  Every time the issue gets raised it is
>another nail in the coffin (or a feather on the camel's back).
>
>Even if _you_ might not expect a change-of-tune, the person asking *next
>year* might get that positive result.  Eventually the world will catch up.
>If you think back 10years ago to when crypto could not be exported from the
>United States ... now there is an exception for crypto provided *with
>source-code* (aka Free Software).
>
>At the moment the company with "the most bases covered" with respect to
>codecs is Linspire, primarily helped through access to discounted codecs
>thanks to terms of their settlement [that they can't talk about] with
>Microsoft (over the term 'Windows').
>
>ImpiLinux (who Mark recently invested in) are another company who've stated
>that they intend to release a paid-for product with various value-added
>services, such as legally-integrated proprietary codecs:
>
>  http://www.impi.org.za/
>
>This keep Ubuntu Free and means that you can get an Ubuntu-based product
>that should work out of the box in a suitably legal way.
>
>	-Paul
>  
>