| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
MS to license Media Player 9 for Linux, others? | |
|
||
| Time: 14:57 EST/19:57 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Microsoft will today announce cheaper, more flexible terms for its Windows Media Player 9 Digital Rights Management software, according to a Reuters report, and allegedly, this will allow the development of Linux WMP 9 clients, among others. Provided Linux developers promise not to steal our stuff, VP for new media platforms Will Poole told Reuters (although we concede, not in quite those words). Given The Beast's oft-stated views on the viral nature of the GPL, Poole's readiness to discuss Linux WMP 9 client software is not a little perplexing. GPL-toting communists get their paws on MS DRM technology, build it into their products, and the whole Microsoft DRM shooting match gets open-sourced? It's a treasurable thought, but regrettably, as Microsoft's eccentric interpretation of the GPL is about 90 per cent marketing spin and 0.5 per cent reality, this is not going to happen. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:10:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/7/2003 3:04:54 PM |
| <insert standard reasons for not posting Register stories here> |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/7/2003 4:02:26 PM |
|
"...the whole Microsoft DRM shooting match gets open-sourced? It's a treasurable thought...."
What? I thought all Microsoft technology is unreliable, insecure, worse than anything else out there, etc. etc. The Linux propagandists are typical here in riding both sides of two mutually exclusive arguments--one that claims everything Microsoft does sucks (thus the reason to switch to Linux), and one that anxiously awaits and pushes for the day that Microsoft ports anything they wrote to Linux. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/7/2003 4:05:45 PM |
|
Ok, huh... Microsoft already licenses WMA to others. The new panasonic dvd players do wma files.
But the GPL-toting communists won't get the source. They'll get a library that they can use, or they'll get a contract with an NDA. They won't be able to GPL it, and they'll whine like crazy. |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/7/2003 5:35:18 PM |
|
To call GPL-toting Penguinistas "Communists" is to insult communists. At least communists and socialists had great philosophers and leaders like Marx, Lenin, and Stalin (regardless of how misguided, cruel, corrupt, and evil they were). The GPL/Linux movement has no great leaders, but instead has blow-hards that like to see themselves type like RMS and ESR. This post was edited by daz on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 at 17:35. |
| #5 By 8062 (206.72.66.205) at 1/7/2003 5:42:00 PM |
|
No no no gentlemen...here's what I like best about that POS english rag posing as a "news outlet" [sic].
"(although we concede, not in quite those words). " |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/7/2003 5:45:13 PM |
|
Do you people know how to read?
bluvg: the article poses that question as a joke and says: but "this is not going to happen." This is a joke because Will Poole is specifically mentioning possibilities on Linux--which makes some dumb-@ssed, presumptious penguins overreact and go: "what they open-sourced it?"--the same way you are presumptiously misinterpreting this. Maybe some would want the tech, but I think the Reg's point is ideological and philosophical: I see no contradiction in finding joy that MS would use Open Source if you are anti-MS... but this was a hypothetical joke anyway. soda: uh, the story doesn't say they just began licensing, does it? It says they have lowered the fees and loosened the terms. The article says it isn't open sourced or that the code is available. You sound like you are mollifying yourself and the softies about something nobody else interpreted to be the case. parker, daz: whatever, as usual. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/7/2003 5:52:04 PM |
|
oh, and, soda, I thought you'd like to know that Apple hasn't changed its pricing policy (in essence)--iDVD was always a paid app; now for the same cost you get an integrated bundle of all the media iApps; iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie remain FREE. And they released more code to the Open Source community today too--their own port of X11, and their contributions to KHTML/Konquerer from Safari, and Keynotes XML spec will soon be released.
Maybe you shouldn't listen to the bullsh!t that PT blows out of his @ss as a basis for ludicrous theories like: OS is a failure because Apple isn't 100% OS, and conversely, Apple is a failure because it does use OS, huh? |
| #8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/7/2003 5:54:30 PM |
|
jerky boy - So when does iDVD go open source?
Oh yeah, and I never said Apple was a failure cause it used Open Source. I only point out that Open Source tends to only work for the source you don't give a care about and Apple is but one example of this. Apple embraced OS in hopes of getting some Linux people on their bandwagon. Didn't help much. What helps is building products people want to buy. Quit preaching to the choir, like that stupid switch campaign and start listening to the real customers. This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 at 18:00. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/7/2003 6:00:07 PM |
|
the whole foundation off your theory is a ridiculous, pathetic, ludicrous joke, but you still want to expand on this idicoy and stick with the theory, huh?
You are one deluded, mofo, mr. blue. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/7/2003 6:02:34 PM |
|
jerky - What's my theory?
I honestly could give a rat's piece of cheese about Apple. The only reason I ever brought it up is because people like you hold them up as some sort of example of brilliance. But if they were brilliant they wouldn't be having such trouble finding buyers. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/7/2003 6:11:50 PM |
|
Actually, you brought it up the other day without any instigation, and what you said was (swallowing down hard on unverified rumor): that since Apple would begin charging for iApps it was proof that Open Source is a failure.
You brought it up first, soda, it does seem like you could give a "a rat's piece of cheese." ("A rat's piece of cheese"? Seriously? Whatever). I can't understand how stupid you would have to be to make such a broad and blanket conclusion, or even what it means, but I believe that's accurate. Ain't it? Please, tell me that's not what you said, soda? I only bring it up now, because it was so ridiculous when you tried to make that statement that I had to refute it then, and now I have to tell you that it was baseless in the first place. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/7/2003 6:24:35 PM |
|
sodajerk - "that since Apple would begin charging for iApps it was proof that Open Source is a failure."
Depends on what you mean by Open Source, doesn't it? Are we talking Linux zealot "Information just wants to be free" Open Source, or a more pragmatic Open Source like I advocate? "I had to refute it then, and now I have to tell you that it was baseless in the first place. " I'm always amazed at your ability to bend backwards and touch your toes to get out of an argument. As I recall at the time you had a difficult time refuting anything as you still weren't clear what the argument was. |
| #13 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/7/2003 6:37:23 PM |
| Sodajerk, I never presumed that MS would OS any part of WM or DRM. Just because it's stated jokingly doesn't diminish their point, and you are well aware the Register is very fond of this. When the author says "It's a treasurable thought," he was of course delighting in the idea that a MS product would get open-sourced (even if only to spite MS). And thus my point remains--some Linux propagandists delight in simultaneously bashing AND co-opting MS technology (Ximian, Mono, various Windows GUI clones, etc., to name some others). Whether or not this were to happen or is even a possibility is besides the point. |
| #14 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/7/2003 6:56:44 PM |
|
"Depends on what you mean by Open Source, doesn't it? Are we talking Linux zealot "Information just wants to be free" Open Source, or a more pragmatic Open Source like I advocate?"
soda, this is idiotic. I'm fully well aware of what I mean by OS--I mean a whole host of strategies and business models. You were the one who was suggesting that the only "whole" OS strategy would be 100% free software. I can't find anyone who agrees with this. It was your argument in the first place, not mine. If you want a more pragmatic OS strategy, isn't that exactly what Apple has? Anyway, I have no reason to argue this--you made a ridiculous statement based on false rumors. Reality and my posts have proven you wrong. Go ahead, say I'm confused, that I'm twisting the argument... I don't need to prove it to myself. I just want everyone else to read your idiocy. "The news.com article is about Apple deciding to charge more for Software updates... Apparently the whole Open Source idea just isn't going over very well at Apple Computer. :)" "The basic point is simple, if Open Source were such a great model Apple would be giving this software away for free instead of charging for it." I let others decide if you were arguing for pragmatism or if there was any logic to your statements. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/7/2003 7:58:37 PM |
|
sodajerk - "You were the one who was suggesting that the only "whole" OS strategy would be 100% free software."
Me? I've never suggested that, it's all the idiots over at slashdot.org that suggest that, along with the various ABMers that come here. I simply find it entertaining to point out how wrong they are. "I don't need to prove it to myself." That's a relief. Maybe you'll shut up now. |
| #16 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 1/7/2003 8:11:49 PM |
|
so apple is making a web browser (Safari) now? WTF? Didn't they do the same thing last decade and called it CyberDog?
a new web browser in 2003. wow, that truly is INNOVATION. LOL. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/7/2003 8:15:52 PM |
|
soda, you say you want to be pragmatic, but you spout this idiocy. You say this is not your view, but you spout it anyway. You say this is the view of /.ers and the idiotic-self-coined-phrase-you-love-to-toss: ABMers, but I can't think of a single user here who has ever said not a single piece of software should be paid for. You say this is someone else's idea, not your's, but then you spout it for yourself... Not only that you then say that this is what other people belive and think when they don't. You claim to understand that OS cannot be umbrella-ed under one philosphy, but you claim we are fighting for this one idiotic view that 90+% of us disagree with. You claim to be rational, pragmatic, and open-minded--you are an idiot and a liar. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 at 20:19. |
| #18 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/7/2003 8:45:58 PM |
|
#22 - "You [SodaBlue] claim to be rational, pragmatic, and open-minded--you are an idiot and a liar."
Well, let's see. Many (although perhaps not the majority) of people on Slashdot DO believe that all software should be free... hence the who "free speech" baloney they spout all the time. I don't recall any ABM on Activewin that actually suggested that *all* software should be free, but certainly many suggest that the majority of it should be. In fact, I had a long argument a few stories ago with just one such individual, and he suggested that eventually all but very specialized (read: marginal) software will be free, and that this is a good thing. "claim to be rational, pragmatic, and open-minded--you are an idiot and a liar." Really? So because he perhaps exaggerated, he is not only no longer rational, but his pragmatism disspears... and his mind is closed, which then alllows you to conclude he is an idiot and a liar? Funny, I can't recall you EVER conceding a point in any of these discussions. Typically, people with an open mind sometimes change it. |
| #19 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/7/2003 9:14:04 PM |
|
Damn, I thought he said he was gonna shut up. :(
"Typically, people with an open mind sometimes change it. " I used to be an ABMer... Now I'm not. I guess I must have an open mind. And yes, I do exagerrate! |
| #20 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/7/2003 9:22:30 PM |
|
jerk, not jumping into the fray, but fyi 'ABM' has been around the Internet for quite a while. I first saw it as long as two years ago on CNET.
daz, for the sake of the 50 million ppl Stalin executed, I've got to take issue with your post. I find it morally reprehensible that you call a person like Stalin, who murdered 50 million of his countrymen, into an argument about software licensing. Perhaps I don't understand what 'great' means. Regardless, your post shows extreme lack of sensitivity and, might I add, ignorance of the foundations of socialism as practiced in Russia. |
| #21 By 2332 (12.105.69.158) at 1/8/2003 10:41:54 AM |
|
#28 - "Stalin was a good leader."
This is no more valid a statement than saying Hitler was a good leader. "good leader" implies several things, one of which is not killing millions of your own people. Call him a "leader", I suppose, but leave out the "good" part. |
| #22 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/8/2003 10:59:20 AM |
|
Perhaps I should've said "successful". Stalin set out to do what he did, so he was successful in his time. He established the Party as the sole governance of the Soviet Union, made the Soviet Union a world power by defeating the Germans and set up one of the most effective espionage outfits which allowed the Soviet Union to stay on top of scientific achievments like nuclear technology, the space race, submarines, aviation, etc.
I'm not defending Stalin, he was certainly one of the most evil people of our time, but at least he accomplished SOMETHING, be it actually a destructive something. The GPL folks can't really claim any achievement be it good or bad. They have lots of software, but it really hasn't gone anywhere. The FSF and OSS movement(s) really hasn't gone anywhere other than attacting a lot of press and light interest. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 160 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:10:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
