Idea: Ubuntu live CD and codecs

[LinuxKid]

Now before you get angry at me and tell me all about automatix, take a breath and listen :???:

I have been using ubuntu and mepis as a live cd and I have been more inclined to use mepis over ubuntu, I can explain.

I currently use an Acer, so the whole problem arises of the broadcom wireless adapter, but the problem is that if I'm using a live cd I can't restart without losing all the stuff I just did (and I can't even figure out how to navigate to a file in the terminal/console/command line/whatever you want to call it, but that's another story) Anyway, what that means is I don't have internet (there goes automatix).

I use mepis more not because of personal preference, but because I'm (somewhat) forced too. I'm forced to because it has all the codecs I need to play media, so all I can use ubuntu for is word processing (which I can do with mepis also; so what's the point of turning off mepis and booting off another cd just to do something that's already on the first cd).

So my suggestion is that we have the live cd include all the codecs, so that users like me and users that don't want to keep downloading the codecs everytime they boot from the live cd, can be happy.

thanks for your time and I hope to be a helpful contributor to the ubuntu forums in the future

[Project 318]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RestrictedFormats


Patent and license restrictions on media formats complicate a free operating system's ability to distribute software that will support those formats.

[LinuxKid]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RestrictedFormats
no, I mean the non restricted formats

obviously

[SSTwinrova]

Hmmmm....interesting. Don't quote me on this, but I think Live CD stuff = only from main = gets support directly from the developers.

P.S. If you go to the trouble to edit the post to say you accidently hit sumbit too early, why not just complete it in that thread? ;)

[poofyhairguy]

no, I mean the non restricted formats


Soo....Ogg and Ogg. I think the Live CD plays Ogg.

[Project 318]

no, I mean the non restricted formats

obviously
I'm pretty sure the livecd has the non restricted formats if the default install has them.
What formats were you talking about then

[LinuxKid]

I'm pretty sure the livecd has the non restricted formats if the default install has them.
What formats were you talking about then
so the codecs on mepis aren't all non restricted?!

uh oh...

[mstlyevil]

so the codecs on mepis aren't all non restricted?!

uh oh...

Yes, they have the Win32 codecs included.

[Project 318]

so the codecs on mepis aren't all non restricted?!

uh oh...
yes, mepis includes non-free codecs

[LinuxKid]

Hmmmm....interesting. Don't quote me on this, but I think Live CD stuff = only from main = gets support directly from the developers.

P.S. If you go to the trouble to edit the post to say you accidently hit sumbit too early, why not just complete it in that thread? ;)
because I didn't know that it actually posted it so I continued finishing it up, unaware of what happened and then I posted this one up

[LinuxKid]

Yes, they have the Win32 codecs included.
so are those illegal or not

if I remember, I had downloaded the divx codec for free from their website, so isn't divx free

P.S. wow thanks for your quick replies

[SSTwinrova]

because I didn't know that it actually posted it so I continued finishing it up, unaware of what happened and then I posted this one up
Fair enough :)

[SSTwinrova]

so are those illegal or not

if I remember, I had downloaded the divx codec for free from their website, so isn't divx free

P.S. wow thanks for your quick replies
Ehhh...."illegal" is a gray area (IMO anyway). In the US, almost definitely. Other locations, depends on the laws. Since this aims to be available to everyone though, the most restrictive laws (typically US) are the ones generally followed.

Just because Divx may be a free download doesn't mean Ubuntu can redistribute it. (Case-in-point, Sun's JVM)

[LinuxKid]

heh, that's what you get from a noob

[mstlyevil]

so are those illegal or not

if I remember, I had downloaded the divx codec for free from their website, so isn't divx free

P.S. wow thanks for your quick replies

To use with Ubuntu, yes they are illegal. Mepis probally paid the license fees so my guess is they are legal in Mepis.

[LinuxKid]

Ehhh...."illegal" is a gray area (IMO anyway). In the US, almost definitely. Other locations, depends on the laws. Since this aims to be available to everyone though, the most restrictive laws (typically US) are the ones generally followed.

Just because Divx may be a free download doesn't mean Ubuntu can redistribute it. (Case-in-point, Sun's JVM)
ah!

ok, then you can scrap my idea

I suddenly feel the urge to move out of the U.S. (hmm...)

[LinuxKid]

To use with Ubuntu, yes they are illegal. Mepis probally paid the license fees so my guess is they are legal in Mepis.
makes sense because mepis is more like a company and sells paid versions of mepis, so they can pass the benefit onto the non-paid versions of their linux

what about knoppix? Is that also like mepis

P.S. what happens if I download the restricted codecs when I'm outside the U.S., can I still use them when I come back ;)

[Jucato]

To use with Ubuntu, yes they are illegal.
Is this always the case? I think you should specify like "To use with Ubuntu in the US". Otherwise, if it was absolutely illegal to use it with Ubuntu, then they wouldn't be posting instructions to install propriety codecs right?

[mstlyevil]

Is this always the case? I think you should specify like "To use with Ubuntu in the US". Otherwise, if it was absolutely illegal to use it with Ubuntu, then they wouldn't be posting instructions to install propriety codecs right?

The US is not the only country this is illegal in. To be safe you must just say it is illegal.

Edit: There is a disclaimer on the Wiki that says it may be illegal in your country. You install these things at your own risk.

[Jucato]

Ok, then maybe "to use with Ubuntu in some countries is illegal" would be more proper? :D
To generalize that "to be safe, you must just say it's illegal" is like saying that you absolutely cannot use those codecs without breaking the law, in whatever country you are from. Generalizations are sometimes also dangerous :D

I'm not sure if Knoppix paid for the license fees. Linspire, AFAIK, did. There are other distros out there who are more than capable for paying for the licenses but do not, because of some principles that they have.

[mstlyevil]

Ok, then maybe "to use with Ubuntu in some countries is illegal" would be more proper? :D
To generalize that "to be safe, you must just say it's illegal" is like saying that you absolutely cannot use those codecs without breaking the law, in whatever country you are from. Generalizations are sometimes also dangerous :D

I'm not sure if Knoppix paid for the license fees. Linspire, AFAIK, did. There are other distros out there who are more than capable for paying for the licenses but do not, because of some principles that they have.

You probally are right about generalizations.

[kanem]

For some of these codecs (like mp3) it is only illegal for Ubuntu to distribute it on their cd in the US. But it's perfectly legal for us to download the codecs for our own use. That's why it's okay for Ubuntu to give us instructions on how to get them.

Very few are actually illegal in the US for the end user to use. The only one I can think of is the DVD encryption breaker. I suppose there are a few others.

[mstlyevil]

For some of these codecs (like mp3) it is only illegal for Ubuntu to distribute it on their cd in the US. But it's perfectly legal for us to download the codecs for our own use. That's why it's okay for Ubuntu to give us instructions on how to get them.

Very few are actually illegal in the US for the end user to use. The only one I can think of is the DVD encryption breaker. I suppose there are a few others.

Win32 might also be illegal. If you use Automatix there is a disclaimer warning of this possibility.

[LinuxKid]

For some of these codecs (like mp3) it is only illegal for Ubuntu to distribute it on their cd in the US. But it's perfectly legal for us to download the codecs for our own use. That's why it's okay for Ubuntu to give us instructions on how to get them.

Very few are actually illegal in the US for the end user to use. The only one I can think of is the DVD encryption breaker. I suppose there are a few others.
like divx,

maybe someone could make a list and then make a new thing in automatix for the REAL restricted formats, so that we can actually do more in ubuntu leagally

my faith in the U.S. government has almost been restored

[Jucato]

Well, basically any format/codec not found in the repository is a restricted format and may be illegal in some countries. So far, the only ones I know of are the w32codecs (which I think also covers DivX/XviD), libdvd*something, and real media formats.

I think kanem is right, though. Illegal to distribute, but probably not illegal to download. But I'm not familiar with US laws, so I'm not certain.

[LinuxKid]

Well, basically any format/codec not found in the repository is a restricted format and may be illegal in some countries. So far, the only ones I know of are the w32codecs (which I think also covers DivX/XviD), libdvd*something, and real media formats.

I think kanem is right, though. Illegal to distribute, but probably not illegal to download. But I'm not familiar with US laws, so I'm not certain.
that's what I mean

btw, using automatix is downloading (which is legal) not using distributed codecs (which is illegal)

so my suggestion above would work

[Jucato]

so my suggestion above would work
Which suggestion would that be? (the very first one or the one immediately preceding?)

[LinuxKid]

maybe someone could make a list and then make a new thing in automatix for the REAL restricted formats, so that we can actually do more in ubuntu leagally

that suggestion

[Jucato]

Ok, but I don't exactly get what you mean.
The only codecs/plugins that Automatix downloads and installs are the restricted formats. There are no non-restricted codecs in Automatix, AFAIK.

[LinuxKid]

Ok, but I don't exactly get what you mean.
The only codecs/plugins that Automatix downloads and installs are the restricted formats. There are no non-restricted codecs in Automatix, AFAIK.
what about libdvdcss, isn't that restricted

that's in automatix

btw, turning off windows and booting from ubuntu live cd now as I try out the automatix cd (I used isobuster), so I'll be away

[Jucato]

There are no non-restricted codecs in Automatix = All codecs in Automatix are restricted
libdvdcss is restricted and it is in Automatix.

Don't see any contradiction between what I said and what you said. :D

[SSTwinrova]

There are no non-restricted codecs in Automatix = All codecs in Automatix are restricted
libdvdcss is restricted and it is in Automatix.

Don't see any contradiction between what I said and what you said. :D
Gotta love double negatives :)

[jesse]

I'm very curious about something. I of course don't want to use codecs illegally and wouldn't recommend it to anyone else either. I'm against any kind of piracy.

My questions:

1. If, as has been stated here, it's legal even to use a free version of Mepis that contains w32codecs, with license fees for them paid for by Mepis from their profits from their non-free distro and with Mepis including w32codecs in their free version out of generosity, then would it be illegal to download Mepis and then use the codecs from Mepis on Ubuntu too, e.g. on a machine with a Mepis/Ubuntu dual boot with the two distros sharing the win32codecs folder if it's located inside a common home partition or something?

2. If I own a purchased copy of the distro Linspire, which includes paid-for licensed w32 and other non-free codecs, would it be legal for me to use the codecs originating from linspire on Ubuntu. After all, I have already paid Linspire a license fee allowing me to use their provided codecs on Linux.

Maybe only one of the above is legal, maybe they both are, or maybe they're both illegal. I would love to know.

[oblio]

yes, mepis includes non-free codecs
Yes, some. But not w32codecs.

Regards,