I wanted to ask a very simple question: why is it that some distros
like Ubuntu & Fedora don't have mp3 suport, no java, adobe, dvd playback
or w32codecs while some distros like Berry linux, Frugalware, Elive
have ALL of these? And then there are some distros like Opensuse, Kanotix,
Mepis which do have mp3 suport but not things like java, flash etc.

If there are any rules, why don't the rules apply to all distros?

And if OpenSuse can have mp3 support, then why not Fedora or Ubuntu?

I've heard some people say that theres some politics or philosophy behind it???

Plz clarify these things for me as I'm confused!

One more thing: If Elive & Berry Linux have libdvdcss2, will I be doing anything
illegal if I use their distros??!!

Thanks

That depends what laws apply in the country where you live.

basically, the larger distros are concerned that they will be sued by the RIAA etc. so they don't include mp3 support, etc.

Otherwise, there is a concern that java, adobe etc aren't opensource and thus aren't included in linux (opensource)

If you aren't doing anything illegal (pirating movies etc) then you don't have to worry about using a distro. - depending on your country's laws.

I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

titanium_geek

Actally the idea is that mp3 is a proprietary file format. So, although it is free as in free bear ( you don't have to pay anything to anybody ), it cannot be distributed with other open-source projects. (the GPL states that if any part of a software distribution is under GPL then the whole thing must be distribute under GPL). The mp3 Liscence terms do not make any provision for distributing it under GPL. However installing for personal use is different from distributing. Thus you can download any mp3 coder and decoder for your own use on fedora core 4. The fact that it is not distributed along with fedora core 4 suffices.

But, Redhat does not encourage using them. Because there are really better formats in open source most importantly ogg-vorbis. Thus using mp3 format instead of vorbis would certainly encourage use of propietary formats which won't be acceptable. This is the reason why Redhat does not even give it as extras (It would be leagal to do so)

Well thanks for the clarification.....but I wonder why small-time distros don't worry about all of it (see Mepis?)

Btw Debasish I stay in India too....but don't like Fedora Suse is my favourite And hey...Suse is also big company but they do give mp3 support??

First is that if you are not big enough, you need to find a way to servive first and then only you can think about enforcing a format.

As for Suse, Suse is a big company, but they don't care for open source. Suse made it open source only for servival (open source). Suse includes a lot of proprietary softwares which you need to buy. (Liscence fee of-course)

!?!?

Suse makes some money from selling linux. They choose to put some of this towards paying to include proprietary drives. This doesn't mean they don't care for open source. You need to get your facts straight.
*disclaimer* I don't use Suse, I use slackware when I have a PC *disclaimer*

And, it's free as in free beer (not bear ) is refering to price- like mp3. But linux (ogg etc) are free as in freedom. There is a difference.

cheers.

titanium_geek

They have free versions for download without all the proprietary stuff in it. If you want the proprietary stuff, you can either purchase a copy from them, or download and install the stuff yourself.

If SuSE doesn't care about open source, why are they creating stuff like AppArmor and XGL for use on all Linux distros?

yah sure, but again if they are including a proprietary file format in their distro, it it should not ship, cos the output is neighther proprietary nor open source. it is illeagal.
And also supporting proprietary file format would promote proprietary means anyway.

And sorry about the spelling mistake

2 points-

Including proprietary stuff on a linux distro isn't illegal. You can take the code, change it if you want to, you can even sell it. The thing that IS illegal with GPL is taking the code, and making it so others can't do the same thing, change it, copy it, distribute it etc.

Use the spell checker! (of course words that are spelled correctly but have the wrong meaning won't be flagged.)

titanium_geek

But mp3's liscence does not also make any provision to make it open source.
I'm no lawyar, but if have ever installed Red Hat Linux 9, It clearly said "Due to some leagal problems, the mp3 support has been removed", I don't know if providing mp3 support is leagal, why would Red Hat do so?

Ehm...lots of debate going on here on a very simple issue

the legal issues are not because of the violation of Linux's license, but because of mp3's license.

titanium_geek

And SUSE does indeed provide a free-as-in-beer version with the proprietary formats supported. The Eval edition, which never expires and does not require a license.

-- Shade

Yes, that's what i'm talking about.
One more thing, providing support for proprietary softwares is another way of saying "Ok, open-source is good, but proprietary is not that bad either". This is why I said, Suse cares less about open-source.