Re: [gst-devel] Re: Helix Player virtual team meeting

On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:01, Danilo Segan wrote:
> Luis Villa <louie ximian com> writes:
> >
> > Hrm. They just legally can't release some of the codecs, for contractual
> > or other reasons. That's hardly 'holding them hostage'.
> >
> > I can't really speak for others, but I'm OK with that, assuming that
> > there are enough Free codecs which also work with the system. It's
> > really hard to blame Real for following contracts they've already
> > signed. :) 
> Luis, I feel that the problem is this:
> If Helix doesn't provide any significant advantage over other, already
> accepted media frameworks (like GStreamer, which is already part of
> Gnome), why would anyone (from the Gnome side) be interested?

If, /if/, it can provide us with proprietary codecs which we can use to
legally access that content, /and/ it does everything else, then there
/is/ a significant advantage. You're right that it doesn't appear that
is the case, though perhaps Real could work in that direction- certainly
Michael seems to have indicated that they are aware of some of the
problems, at least, which is the first step to fixing them. 

> If Helix provides Gnome with a real value for Free Software
> contributors (like Free access to Real codecs), than it certainly is
> a worthy alternative to GStreamer.
> Alas, it doesn't, so it's not.


> I can see it only as another media-framework platform, which arguably
> has some advantages, and has some disadvantages over GStreamer. Since
> there is not any BIG advantage for the Gnome project, I don't see how
> "we" could or should care.

I would note that at this point we're not seriously committed to
gstreamer. Yes, we like it, and yes, we use it, but for all real intents
and purposes all of our important apps (mainly RB and totem) work with
xine just as well or better, and presumably we could do the same with
the Helix framework if it offered advantages (technical or otherwise.)
So gstreamer should have to argue on the technical merits- 'it is
already in GNOME' should not be good enough, or even a significant point
in their favor. [Sorry, guys, you know I love ya :)

> It's a parallel effort, with different goals -- Gnome integration is
> just a side advantage, and not the real goal.

The gstreamer guys have pointed out repeatedly that gnome integration is
not their primary goal either- they'd like both KDE and GNOME to use
them. :)

> On the same note, Real has not convinced any of us that it is true to
> the Free Software ideals (if it was, it would be possible to reuse
> even those binary-only codecs in other media frameworks, if we are
> ready to accept binary-only stuff, like you seem to be :).

Just to be clear, I'm ready to accept binary-only stuff /only/ if the
framework is Free, and /if/ the framework supports open/Free
alternatives to all the binary-only bits. _if_ those goals are met, then
frankly, I don't care what Real's 'ideals' are, or how many binary-only
bits they ship, because if they try to screw us, we have the code, and
we have alternatives.

Hope that helps clarify how I feel/stand-

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]