Enabling and installing of "risky" ("patented") codecs - made easy

[Fabian Greffrath]

Dear pkg-multimedia team-mates,

I'd like to discuss an issue with you that concerns me for a while now. 
I will be happy to read all of your opinions and suggestions!

You all know about the unsatisfying situation of some codec libraries 
that are commonly called 'risky' or 'patented'; namely lame, xvid and 
friends. While being perfectly free software on the one hand, licensed 
under the GPL or LGPL, they are surrounded by a cloud of patent FUD or 
even actual threat, which makes them unsuitable for Debian's main 
section [0]. Nevertheless on the user's side there is a demand for those 
codecs which can be whitnessed by the broad acceptance of unofficial 
repositories [see: http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_inst]. 
Furthermore, there is nothing that might hold users back from using this 
software in Europe, because IIRC software patents do not exist on this 
continent.

With a basic set of libraries (e.g. lame, faac, xvid, x264) at least the 
following packages in Debian (I guess there are lots more) could be 
extended in their features: ffmpeg, gstreamer0.10-plugins-{bad,ugly}, 
libquicktime, etc. Some of these packages are already prepared for 
inclusion of those codecs, e.g. if you compile ffmpeg with 
'DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=risky' set or set some 'EXTRA_PLUGINS' in the 
gstreamer packages, you'll be awarded with enhanced features. While on 
the one hand it's nice to find such preparations in existing packages, 
there are still at least two defiencies left: (1) There is no 
consistency among these methods. (2) We do not make the needed codec 
libraries available, we do not even explain why we don't.

My suggestions:

(@2) We are already maintaining libdvdcss2 and x264 (which are definite 
candidates for maybe-illegal-in-some-countries) in our SVN and I think 
we should consider maintaining the other mentioned libraries (at least 
lame, faac and xvid), too [1]. I am not talking about uploading them to 
Debian, but at least making them available for compilation and packaging 
on the user's own computer [2]. Of course, Debian will not officially 
support this and it should be made clear to the user that what she is 
doing might be illegal in her country, etc.

(@1) We should try to introduce a Debian-wide standard for the affected 
packages and maybe even mark them e.g. in the package description, so 
the user knows: "If I compile this package with [e.g.] 
'DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=risky' set, I will get a feature-enhanced version of 
the software. I will need additional library packages, but I can compile 
them myself from the sources and the Debian packaging found at the 
pkg-multimedia SVN." Packages built this way will have the smallest 
possible interdiff with their 'official' counterparts [3]. Again, it 
should be made clear to the user that what she is doing is absolutely 
unsupported by Debian and not recommended by the maintainers and may be 
illegal in her country, etc.

What do you think? Is it worth the effort?
Please share your thoughts with me!

Cheers,
Fabian
 
[0] Of course we should motivate people to use free and open formats for 
their media, e.g. OGG Vorbis, and I am strictly for it. But sadly the 
world isn't that perfect and your $20 MP3-player supports nothing but 
MP3 and your DVD-Player will play XVID but not Theora, etc...

[1] Similar effort has been put into the debian-unofficial.org project 
which has been founded by Daniel Baumann in 2005 but has recently lost 
priority (well, it died) because of his involvement in the Debian Live 
project (Well, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I consider Debian Live a 
great project, it's just a pity for d-u.o). Debian packaging can be 
found at http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/restricted/dists/trunk/ and may give 
a good starting point.

[2] I know there is already Chrstian Marillat's unofficial repository at 
www.debian-multimedia.org, where you can download binary packages for 
those codecs, but this situation is also suboptimal and I have some 
personal objections with it: First of all it is not a team-maintained 
project, but a one-man-show (well, maybe two-man). The packaging style 
differs very much from the 'official' counterparts in Debian; take 
ffmpeg or the gstreamer packages as examples. Also many of the packages 
are not up to the quality standards that Debian imposes (e.g. have a 
look at some of the debian/copyright files). Last but not least there is 
this 'unofficial', nearly 'amateurish' taste of this repository; e.g. 
the homepage does not even look remotely Debian-related. [Christian, if 
you read this, please do not take it as a personal offense. I highly 
appreciate the effort you put in your repository, but I have also 
already tried to contact you about my issues - whithout success.]

[3] The user could even run her own private repository tracking unstable 
with no more effort than constantly having 'DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=risky' 
set. Of course, if she wants her packages to replace the 'official' 
ones, the Debian revision will have to be modified, e.g. 
ffmpeg_0.cvs20070307-6+risky1.

-- 
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath

Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134
D-44780 Bochum

Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334
Fax:   +49 (0)234 / 32-14227
E-Mail: greffrath at leat.ruhr-uni-bochum.de