Does OpenSuse come with all the codecs

Use the Packman repo
install w32codecs + libdvdcss and all is well.

just as simple as ubuntu

On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:57 +0000, malcolmlewis wrote:
> [QUOTE=dragonbite]
> Jonathan_R;2087571 Wrote:
> > There is talk that begining with openSUSE 11.3 Boxed set, that codecs
> > and the various restricted formats would be included. One more reason
> > to buy the boxed set. :wink:
> >
> > P.S. Is there proof to what I am saying? Not yet. How then do I know?
> > Let’s just say I have some inside information, and I just can’t go
> > into more than this right now.
> > **
>
> That would be great if the codecs are included in the purchase price
> for the boxed set!
>
> I think Dell’s Ubuntu includes some (Fluendo?) codecs with it and I
> assume that the cost for that is included in the price for the
> hardware.

This is true. Dell’s with their Ubuntu come with the fluendo
codecs (which are VERY limited).

>
> Heck if it is in the boxed set I may even be willing to purchase one
> for that legal aspect!
>
> Could even produce a full-fledged convert >:)

BUT, are you willing to lose the applications that work well? Are
willing to live with the slowness or other limitation associated
with commerical codecs?

My guess is inclusion of fluendo would sell SOME SLED, but nothing
else, and even then, when you realize that it probably covers less
than 10% of the codec requirements that most people want, even so,
it won’t sell much.

The codec issue is HUGE… not easily solved.

However, if Novell CAN solve this (really solve it), then more
will use openSUSE/SLED. But I can’t see Novell solving this
for openSUSE… it costs too much… and there would be SEVERE
restrictions on its use (which would make people hate Novell/SUSE
even more).

And just as illegal in my home town.

(doesn’t mean it is in everybody’s … but I’m living here so I don’t care what’s legal or not legal where anybody else is any more than the price of tea in China :wink: )

On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 21:06 +0000, dragonbite wrote:
> redbook4574;2088963 Wrote:
> > Use the Packman repo
> > install w32codecs + libdvdcss and all is well.
> >
> > just as simple as ubuntu
>
> And just as illegal in my home town.
>
> -(doesn’t mean it is in everybody’s … but I’m living here so I don’t
> care what’s legal or not legal where anybody else is any more than the
> price of tea in China :wink: )-

Of course, Chinese tea is filtered…

What is doubly frustratingly annoying about that, is that most likely you paid with the hardware for an MP3 license included with Windows. That Licensor’s can charge multiple times for the same right every time you upgrade the OS appears unfair to me.

More ppl need to care that it is illegal and lobby their elected political representatives. If it were legal in the US, then I would expect a more convenient solution be found for the majority of users.

On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 16:46 +0000, robopensuse wrote:
> dragonbite;2088975 Wrote:
> > And just as illegal in my home town.
> >
> > -(doesn’t mean it is in everybody’s … but I’m living here so I don’t
> > care what’s legal or not legal where anybody else-
> What is doubly frustratingly annoying about that, is that most likely
> you paid with the hardware for an MP3 license included with Windows.
> That Licensor’s can charge multiple times for the same right every time
> you upgrade the OS appears unfair to me.
>
> More ppl need to care that it is illegal and lobby their elected
> political representatives. If it were legal in the US, then I would
> expect a more convenient solution be found for the majority of users.
>

It CAN be legal in the USA. You just have to PAY for it. And then,
it has to pass muster with regards to usage. Thus the “system” using
the tehcnology has to certify so that it cannot be abused for ripping,
reencoding, etc. At least to their satisfaction. And obviously, there
will be a massive array of restrictions with regards to distribution,
etc.

Only in the USA will you find that “figuring out how things work” is
against the law… sigh…

As I said before, we are trying to work it out so that it is possible. Here is the response from whom I get the info from.

Jon,

I know the fluendo codecs. Multimedia codecs are needed, but first some
things needs to be resolved:

  • codec licenses
  • pattern licenses
  • interfaces to all well know Linux APIs

The status today is that no open source code is definity free of
software pattern issues.

  • so you need a software pattern free ore licensed source code. This is
    not availible in any open source project.

For example for mp3 you need to by two licenspools and serveral software
patterns. And if you have done this, you are not sure if someone comes
out of the blue an put an issue on you.

The openess of open source at this point a real problem. Noone needs to
spend a lot of affords for reengineering! He just reads the code and
thats it. Afterwards you can fight against software patterns, especially
software patterns you can destroy, because they are not valid. This
takes years and billions of $

I’m working on this since 6 months now. <snip>

The currend single licence for one box is about 35-38$. That highly to
much. This would result in a box price of more than 100$. Would anyone
by such an expensive box? Probably noone…

What I feel is that there is a price limit of about 80$ customers are
willing to pay for. Otherwise cheaper boxes without codecs will take our
customers away. And even 80$ is a lot of money…

I think the first distribution that will crack this problem for
mainstream will win the race. This will also result that we may sue
distris that don’t play fair with codecs. Currently I don’t want to do
that.

Best regards,

I am holding back the sources name for now.


specifically which multimedia needs are unmet with opensuse?

Yes, it may be legal, if you have a license covering mp3 paid on the hardware.

The situation for using another codec, if you have say a paid Fluendo commercial codec, but generally use the superior performing FOSS ones, is as clear as mud to me. The killer is all the uncertainty.

However has Fraunhofer or anyone else actually gone after end users for Software Patent license breaches? Remember how Metallica shot themselves in the foot over Napster? Even the recording industry has decided it’s better not to sue kids doing downloads now (yes I know that’s copyright not patents, but those are clearer “theft” cases whereas with patents ignorance of a breach is a defense).

The whole thing is a mess, and the whole Patent system is in disrepute.