As you may have seen, Google announced at their Google I/O conference that they were discontinuing their XMPP service, Google Talk. It’s very unfortunate, because XMPP is the most deployed open standard for instant messaging. It gave Google users the ability to communicate instantly with anyone using an XMPP federated service (like FSFE’s fellows XMPP server). Even Microsoft recently enabled its users to communicate to the outside world through XMPP. Now, Google is “replacing” Google Talk with Google+ Hangouts which will no longer support XMPP¹:

Note: We announced a new communications product, Hangouts, in May 2013. Hangouts will replace Google Talk and does not support XMPP.

What we know is that Google stops XMPP federation. Soon, Google users won’t be able to chat with anybody but other Google users. If I were paranoid, I’d say this makes their recent move on Google Talk look suspicious. But enough whining. What can we do about this? Well, there might be a way out for those of you who were using Google Talk as their XMPP service and who had a lot of non-Google contacts. Did you read Google’s Terms of Service? I bet you didn’t . No worries, we sum it up for you at Terms of Service; Didn’t Read. So, you might have noticed this interesting bit:

Google enables you to get your information out when a service is discontinued Discussion Google gives you reasonable advance notice when a service is discontinued and “a chance to get information out of that Service.”

The full terms state:

We believe that you own your data and preserving your access to such data is important. If we discontinue a Service, where reasonably possible, we will give you reasonable advance notice and a chance to get information out of that Service.

So far, the only notice I have seen is on a developer page so I don’t think that counts for a “reasonable advance notice”; we yet have to wait for this when Google announces to their users that they discontinue Google Talk. Or maybe Google’s going to argue that they don’t “discontinue” a Service because Talk is replaced by Hangouts (which does not support XMPP and which isn’t federated). I’d argue it’s not true and that XMPP chat is discontinued. Hence Google should give users a way out. Let’s hope that those who have decided to pay allegiance to Google will be able to get their chat contact list out of Google Talk, with a way to import them into XMPP providers which are federated.

1. it remains unclear whether XMPP support is entirely gone for xmpp-client-to-server according to Ars↩

Edit Source Link

On March 7, Google announced they reached an Agreement with MPEG-LA around patents that “may” cover the open video codec VP8.

Thanks to this agreement, the most serious concerns that people had about using VP8 and webM for their videos on the web are gone. (Well, almost, because Nokia(/Microsoft) claims to have patents infringed by VP8 still).

Monty from Xiph.Org, developer of free software and open video codecs like Theora is very happy about this announcement. Indeed, it shows that MPEG-LA has lost. They did not have anything serious to bring VP8 down.

Oh. Oh my. After a decade of the MPEG LA saying they were coming to destroy the FOSS codec movement, with none other than the late Steve Jobs himself chiming in, today the Licensing Authority announced what we already knew.

They got nothing.

But what should remain from this? I think there are some lessons to learn here for Free Software. Sure, MPEG-LA has lost. But who won? Not us, and surely not the Web.

The question is: how’s that possible that a group of patent holders who had nothing serious to stop adoption of webM and other open codecs like Theora managed to impose on us their patent-restricted codec?

Let’s go back a little. The whole saga starts from the HTML5 group. (Bear in mind that this effort started outside of the W3C, comprising mainly of browser-vendors including Apple and Microsoft.) I don’t have enough knowledge of the inside politics of this group. But what remains out of it is that one of the most discussed features of HTML5, the <video> element, is a failure.

Why HTML5 <video> has been a failure

Why’s that a failure? Because today, it seems that most of the time HTML5 videos are encoded solely using the restricted-by-patents AVC/H.264 format. That means that publication on the Web is now restricted by rules determined by a cartel of patent holders (The MPEG-LA has been under investigation by the US Department of Justice for anti-trust concerns since 2011.)

This is certainly not how the web was envisioned. The web was envisioned with freedom at its core. Just like Tim Berners-Lee didn’t have to ask anybody’s permission to make the Web work 22 years ago¹, nobody should have to ask anyone’s permission to publish something on the web.

Why HTML5 <video> is still a failure

Now the second attack against HTML5 <video> has come. We saw it coming, about a year ago. But nothing was done. It is only now that I see a reaction (BTW if you haven’t done yet, please sign now to stop Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) on the Web: defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5).

Make no mistake. These are concordant, and very important attacks. They will deeply change the Web if they succeed. Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and others want to control how one can make videos (through patents) and who can watch videos (through DRM).

The first part (patents) seems lost. We have to fight for the second part.

What we need: to weigh in the political process of shaping HTML5 and to fight FUD

Here I want to focus a little bit on how they achieved to control videos through patents and how this is related to what we’re witnessing with the proposal to include DRM in HTML.

These are some of the steps:

1. Make a technical proposal to the HTML5 group.

   Oppose inclusion in the standard of Free Software and claim the reason is concerns around patents.

   In case opposition come from Free Software folks, claim there is no problem because your proposal can be included in hardware

2. Spread FUD everywhere that Free Software implementations and technological alternatives are violating patents.²

   (Of course, hope that nobody sees how hypocrite you are, because the patent risks come from your own patents and from organisations like MPEG-LA, which you are a part of)

3. Make vague threats of lawsuits and show your muscles.

   (I now regret having participated in this by publishing Steve Jobs’ answer to my open letter. I should have handled this more carefully and contacted other organsations like Xiph.Org… This could have been a nice opportunity to debunk FUD more efficiently.)

4. Buy yourself time, continue spreading FUD

I think it’s time to realise that building web technologies is a process with political implications. They’re trying to change the web from a place where you’re free to express yourself without having to ask anybody’s permission or having to agree to a restricted-patent-license, into something where you cannot express freely without using proprietary technology and where DRM prevents you from doing legitimate things (like saving a private copy of online content, or watching a video using only Free Software, the only way to ensure your privacy).

Of course, people who are aware enough of these issues will still be able to publish using Free Software with webM and Theora, and the next open codecs. Surely, there will be ways to crack DRM.

But what about everyone else? Do we want to accept the Web as a fragmented place? No, we want to keep the Web as it is, universal.

IMHO, the only reason why things aren’t so bad is thanks to Mozilla. By building Firefox, maintaining an independent browser engine when everybody’s going WebKit, and getting involved in the whole HTML5 spec process, they’ve managed to hold back these attacks. But they haven’t succeeded entirely. How long before Mozilla suffers from these attacks and cannot be as competitive as other web browsers?

We all need each other here. And I think it’s time to bring some political weight to the HTML5 process to counterbalance this.

1. Actually, TBL did have to ask someone’s permission: his employer, CERN. But it’s totally unrelated ↩

2. Apple seems particularly good at this ↩

Edit Source Link

• Good support with Debian Testing
• No more than 13 inches
• Good Battery life. At least 5 hours
• around 1 kilo / 2.4 pounds
• No more than 500 EUR
• SSD

Those who think 2012 was the year of all records regarding patents¹ might want to think again. There is a trend here.

But in 2013, it seems that the fight for abolition might happen right there.

1. including the landmark $1 billion damages in Samsung v. Apple; though I have my doubts whether it will stand in appeal, considering how wrong the jury was. ↩

Read More…

Also see how to add DuckDuckGo as a search engine in Gnome Shell built-in web search.

If you’re interested in raising awareness about rights online and stopping the biggest lie on the web (“Yes, I have read and agree to the Terms”) join us at ToS;DR!

Nous sommes censés représenter les citoyens, mais comme ils sont occupés à autre chose, nous sommes censés réfléchir à leur place !

We are supposed to represent citizens, however since they are busy with other things, we are supposed to think for them!

— Marielle Gallo, députée du parlement européen favorable à ACTA, à propos du vote des commissions du parlement européen contre le texte.
pro-ACTA MEP, about the vote against the treaty from the European Parliament commissions

(source pcINpact)

“Can you highlight how robust content protection can be implemented in an open source web browser?” he asked. “How do you guard against an open source web browser simply being patched to write the frames/samples to disk to enable (presumably illegal) redistribution of the protected content?”

Netflix’s Mark Watson responded to the message and acknowledged that strong copy protection can’t be implemented in an open source Web browser. He deflected the issue by saying that copy protection mechanisms can be implemented in hardware, and that such hardware can be used by open source browsers.

Microsoft, Google and Netflix are making a Web standard proposal for proprietary javascript as DRM, no less! This proposal is totally at odds with web ethics. Not only it would be the first Web standard to impose proprietary software to the user, it would mostly be against everything the Web stands for! Making copies and sharing content between individuals is so much a widespread practice. Can you imagine: being prevented from copy-pasting something from a webpage!

In the end, the current situation is that DRM require to maintain (costly) DRM servers and obsolete no cross-platform software. Let’s make it stay that way. I see no reason why users should have to accept to take the burden of DRM costs.

My reply to Bjarni:

Wait, who cares?

Why does this matter?

Well, although I’m sure most people don’t care, us geeks can get really emotional about the difference between Free Software and Open Source. Violent, even.

Every geek has an opinion. But when asked to explain, we falter and wave our hands, “admitting” that there’s really no difference, or spouting vague nonsense about pragmatism vs. idealism or even communism vs. capitalism.

I’ve always found this deeply unsatisfying. Because although I respect Open Source, I love Free Software.
Definitions!

So what is the difference? I propose the following definitions:

The Free Software Community writes and shares software with an explicit intent to safeguard the rights and freedoms of its users by eliminating antifeatures and natural monopolies.

The Open Source Community writes and shares software with an explicit intent to advance the state of the art of computing through open collaboration and publication.

Both are noble goals, members of both camps can stand proud. But when stated this way, they are also obviously different.

Free Software v. “Open Source” community?

This year though, I will not only attend and chat at the booth, I will also discuss the topic of application stores in the Legal DevRoom, Saturday afternoon, with Giovanni Battista Gallus, Bradley M. Kuhn, and Richard Fontana. Here’s the abstract:

So-called “app stores” are becoming a popular means of distributing software, particularly for mobile devices. However, the rise of app stores has been accompanied by tensions with free software/open source legal norms. Companies controlling official app distribution channels for their platforms typically place restrictive terms on both users and developers in ways that may be difficult or impossible to harmonize with requirements and expectations around FLOSS licensing. Moreover, there is a perception that noncompliance with FLOSS licenses is prevalent in app store distribution. This panel will explore some of the problems arising out of the intersection between app stores and FLOSS, under EU as well as US law, and will discuss possible solutions.

So if you’re interested, come and join us at 17.30 in room AW1.125!