Comments on: The Legality or Illegality of w32codecs and libdvdcss2 http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/ Random musings from the radical feminist Christian antiracist left - some having to do with Ubuntu Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:47:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: TamusRoyce http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-3197 TamusRoyce Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:08:18 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-3197 As far as I know the w32codec package runs under a system called winelib. This stand for Windows Is Not an Emulator - library. Or in other words, it's an underlying set of functions which allow the execution of coff binaries and dll's (the type of executable/libraries used by windows) with a set of libraries which wrap function calls to windows into calls which "hopefully" produce the same results on linux. As for it being legal to run these codec under linux using this sytem, I'm not sure. A lot of stuff produced by Microsoft uses a license which requires it to stay on an operation system licensed by Microsoft. But I'm sure that not all, if any, of these codecs are directly produced by Microsoft--and therefore not needing to use that license. But Linux can be licensed under a windows license. Read into Xandros Linux for more information. Using Crossover Wine (where winelib is from the same maker, but open source, not commercial, and as complete) + License from Windows for running Wine/Microsoft programs, then you will be absolutely able, 100% legal and licensed to run w32codecs. As for the DVD Decryption, breaking encryption's are usually done by having a reference to something not allowed by law to have (A specific Key/Hash that has been leaked in this case). Then coding it and removing/denying anything about ever seeing it. How else can you defeat the "Big Red Sun" problem (where our Sun would turn into a giant red before going though each number possible at even our largest & fastest computers of today-Look into how probable for two GUID to be produced with the same exact number) Stick with a licensed player/DVD Copier Software. If one doesn't exist for linux that you like, use Codeweavers Wine + Windows License for Linux and install whatever windows software you feel like, while having the linux OS below. But to truely determine if w32codecs are legal, look into each manufacturer of the .dll file (usually found by searching or calling the author/company of that codec that once held a patent for that codec). I would also assume if the codec wasn't produced by Microsoft, that it was as closed source to them as it is to us. As far as I know the w32codec package runs under a system called winelib. This stand for Windows Is Not an Emulator – library.

Or in other words, it’s an underlying set of functions which allow the execution of coff binaries and dll’s (the type of executable/libraries used by windows) with a set of libraries which wrap function calls to windows into calls which “hopefully” produce the same results on linux.

As for it being legal to run these codec under linux using this sytem, I’m not sure. A lot of stuff produced by Microsoft uses a license which requires it to stay on an operation system licensed by Microsoft. But I’m sure that not all, if any, of these codecs are directly produced by Microsoft–and therefore not needing to use that license.

But Linux can be licensed under a windows license. Read into Xandros Linux for more information.

Using Crossover Wine (where winelib is from the same maker, but open source, not commercial, and as complete) + License from Windows for running Wine/Microsoft programs, then you will be absolutely able, 100% legal and licensed to run w32codecs.

As for the DVD Decryption, breaking encryption’s are usually done by having a reference to something not allowed by law to have (A specific Key/Hash that has been leaked in this case). Then coding it and removing/denying anything about ever seeing it. How else can you defeat the “Big Red Sun” problem (where our Sun would turn into a giant red before going though each number possible at even our largest & fastest computers of today-Look into how probable for two GUID to be produced with the same exact number)

Stick with a licensed player/DVD Copier Software. If one doesn’t exist for linux that you like, use Codeweavers Wine + Windows License for Linux and install whatever windows software you feel like, while having the linux OS below.

But to truely determine if w32codecs are legal, look into each manufacturer of the .dll file (usually found by searching or calling the author/company of that codec that once held a patent for that codec).

I would also assume if the codec wasn’t produced by Microsoft, that it was as closed source to them as it is to us.

]]> By: Alex http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-109 Alex Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:54:41 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-109 I live in Argentina and even pirate software from M$ was unchallenged, as Microsoft doesn't dare to sue everyone over here because of loopholes in our laws. If you live in a third-world country when nobody cares about piracy, and less about Linux codecs, then go ahead and install them. If you live in the European Union, in the US or other first-world country, ask your lawyer. I live in Argentina and even pirate software from M$ was unchallenged, as Microsoft doesn’t dare to sue everyone over here because of loopholes in our laws. If you live in a third-world country when nobody cares about piracy, and less about Linux codecs, then go ahead and install them. If you live in the European Union, in the US or other first-world country, ask your lawyer.

]]> By: ubuntucat http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-108 ubuntucat Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:47:41 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-108 Actually, I've heard that mentioned quite often in these debates, and it's usually challenged. While what you're saying <i>may</i> be arguable by a lawyer, it's not 100% clearly legal. Take a look at <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx" rel="nofollow">the Windows XP Home EULA</a>, for example: 2.2 Windows Media Format Software Development Kit ("WMFSDK"). This EULA does not grant you any rights to use the WMFSDK components contained in the Software to develop a software application that uses Windows Media technology. If you wish to use the WMFSDK to develop such an application, visit http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/imedia/windowsmedia /sdk/wmsdk.asp, accept a separate license for the WMFSDK, download the appropriate WMFSDK, and install it on your system. 4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation. 13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms. Actually, I’ve heard that mentioned quite often in these debates, and it’s usually challenged.

While what you’re saying may be arguable by a lawyer, it’s not 100% clearly legal.

Take a look at the Windows XP Home EULA, for example:

2.2 Windows Media Format Software Development Kit (“WMFSDK”). This EULA does not grant you any rights to use the WMFSDK components contained in the Software to develop a software application that uses Windows Media technology. If you wish to use the WMFSDK to develop such an application, visit http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/imedia/windowsmedia /sdk/wmsdk.asp, accept a separate license for the WMFSDK, download the appropriate WMFSDK, and install it on your system.

4. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.

13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA, and, if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity). The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must agree to all the EULA terms.

]]> By: Ben Atkinson http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-107 Ben Atkinson Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:35:32 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-107 One thing I rarely if ever see mentioned in these debates, is that if a person owns a legitimate copy of M$ Windows, even if it's an ancient Win95 disk, which has been stashed in a drawer sin 1998, then he or she owns a legitimate license to use the win32 codecs, and most likely libdvd as well, on one computer, whether that computer is running Windows or not. I personally own several dusty, cobweb covered Windows install disks, so I don't worry about using the codecs in my Linux installations. Ben One thing I rarely if ever see mentioned in these debates, is that if a person owns a legitimate copy of M$ Windows, even if it’s an ancient Win95 disk, which has been stashed in a drawer sin 1998, then he or she owns a legitimate license to use the win32 codecs, and most likely libdvd as well, on one computer, whether that computer is running Windows or not. I personally own several dusty, cobweb covered Windows install disks, so I don’t worry about using the codecs in my Linux installations. Ben

]]> By: Linux Mint Review « UbuntuCat http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-106 Linux Mint Review « UbuntuCat Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:16:05 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-106 [...] The regular Linux Mint includes w32codecs and other legally questionable packages. If you are unsure about (and actually care about) the legality of the default codecs in Mint, [...] [...] The regular Linux Mint includes w32codecs and other legally questionable packages. If you are unsure about (and actually care about) the legality of the default codecs in Mint, [...]

]]> By: MasterHalo http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-105 MasterHalo Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:47:04 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-105 Good thing that you opened that subject. I have been for a long time wondering wether it was legal or not. After some time of using linux, I began reading some stuffs on the net about licenses and so on. As you, I'm not 100% sure but I think John Dykstra is right, the windows "whatever version" (which include the w32codecs files) is a product under copyright, so I think that this apply to all the files present in windows "whatever version" exept those already under an other licence (for exemple the TCP/IP part which is under BSD licence). Good thing that you opened that subject. I have been for a long time wondering wether it was legal or not. After some time of using linux, I began reading some stuffs on the net about licenses and so on. As you, I’m not 100% sure but I think John Dykstra is right, the windows “whatever version” (which include the w32codecs files) is a product under copyright, so I think that this apply to all the files present in windows “whatever version” exept those already under an other licence (for exemple the TCP/IP part which is under BSD licence).

]]> By: ubuntucat http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-104 ubuntucat Mon, 28 May 2007 23:42:05 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-104 Thanks for that, John Dykstra. I wasn't trying to assert that w32codecs is legal, but it's also difficult to say with 100% certainty that something is illegal unless an official statement from the offended party has been issue or a case has been brought to court. Thanks for that, John Dykstra. I wasn’t trying to assert that w32codecs is legal, but it’s also difficult to say with 100% certainty that something is illegal unless an official statement from the offended party has been issue or a case has been brought to court.

]]> By: John Dykstra http://www.psychocats.net/ubuntucat/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/comment-page-1/#comment-103 John Dykstra Mon, 28 May 2007 08:17:56 +0000 http://ubuntucat.wordpress.com/2007/05/28/the-legality-or-illegality-of-w32codecs-and-libdvdcss2/#comment-103 Based on how copyright works, which is that all rights not granted are not allowed to a party, win32codecs are illegal. They are copying files that Microsoft has never explicitly granted the right of people to copy. I don't see Microsoft going and suing anyone soon, but it would be an option for the company. Based on how copyright works, which is that all rights not granted are not allowed to a party, win32codecs are illegal. They are copying files that Microsoft has never explicitly granted the right of people to copy. I don’t see Microsoft going and suing anyone soon, but it would be an option for the company.

]]>