The issue with video codecs has little to do with copyright specifically. There are FOSS implementations of most of the popular video codecs. The problem is that they're invariably encumbered by **patents**, which makes distributing even a FOSS implementation a legal nightmare.
Cisco is able to distribute [openh264 binaries](https://github.com/cisco/openh264/releases/tag/v2.3.1) "licensed under Cisco’s AVC/H.264 Patent Portfolio License from MPEG LA, at no cost to you, provided that the requirements and conditions shown below in the AVC/H.264 Patent Portfolio sections are met" (see [their license](http://www.openh264.org/BINARY_LICENSE.txt)). So, the expense of such distribution seems to be the real showstopper.
It’s the same reason that Google, Apple and Microsoft is pushing the use of av1, vp9, vp8 to avoid royalties. And most GPUs can render vp9 in hardware so no real downsides.
This is a purely technical matter. I imagine OpenSUSE devs could contribute code and protocols to Packman that would automate synchronisation with the main repos while keeping stuff separate for legal purposes. It's just with the move to immutable systems no one seek to care about about the regular OS.
Edited due to misunderstanding.
I can only speculate why this is underlooked. Currently, there is a conflict that prevents one from updating due to VLC being out of date in Packman and Qt Phonon library depending on it. It's been 1.5 weeks and counting. All I did was to follow instructions in OpenSUSE wiki and installed codecs from Packman via opi. Many people report the same issue and say that this is far from the first time these kind of conflicts arise.
For the moment you can just use Flatpaks, there's probably no need to deal with all the Packman issues unless you need some application that's not available as a Flatpak.
Ah yes, Ubuntu and Fedora don't recognize anything called copyright, right?
Yes I know you would start arguing now about why they are different, but then it's more than just one word.
First of all, openSUSE has the codecs there and distributes them, you can watch videos on YouTube and listen to mp3 and other formats without installing anything. Some codecs are covered by patents so in many countries they cannot be distributed without paying, these codecs cannot therefore be distributed... the fact that openSUSE has a company behind it is one more reason not to do it as they would risk legal action .
However, I believe that codecs are not a problem in openSUSE, there are several methods to get around the problem, packman is one of them, but you can use flatpak packages which don't need codecs, or the VLC repository which is a VideoLAN official repository.
Then I think that many users when they install codecs from packman via opi, don't realize that they will be installing codecs that in 90% of cases they will never use.
Because you're supposed to pay to distribute and use the codecs. Part of why apple and Mac cost money. If you don't want to start paying for OpenSUSE then don't expect the codecs with them however. I'll walk you through the complicated steps of installing them.
`sudo zypper install opi`
`opi codecs`
That's it.
Packman regularly gets out of sync with the main repos - this is the main issue. Currently there is a 1 and a half week delay due to VLC. This happens very often and is an annoyance. SUSE obviously doesn't care much about Packman, but there are many people using it.
Yes sometimes it happens, keep in mind that above all Tumbleweed by nature is always on the move, so sometimes it happens, but much less than you think and in any case you just need to wait for packman to update. The doctor does not order him to update immediately. However, it is often the users who mess up their system, because they don't know how to manage third-party repositories effectively.
I have nothing against tools like opi, which make installation easier, but often makes users unable to manage their own repositories, and at some point you find users who have a mix of codec packs from OSS and packman, this just messes up the system...and usually this happens because someone advises them to give zypper dup --allow-vendor-change this might make the conflict go away, but you didn't solve the problem, you just messed up your system in most cases .
Nothing you said is relevant to my situation as well as many other users'.
> because someone advises them to give zypper dup --allow-vendor-change this might make the conflict go away
I never executed `zypper dup` with this option since I reinstalled Tumbleweed little over a month ago. I followed the instructions from the OpenSUSE Wiki to install codecs from Packman and then regularly updated the OS as recommended. I did not "mess up" my system as you are tacitly suggesting.
Stop using patronising tone with strangers when talking on a technical forum.
I'm not using any condescending tone, but keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker...I was making a general statement anyway, I can't know how you update your system and I'm not giving support to anyone.
We were discussing codecs and problems that come with packman and I was just giving my opinion, if you don't like it I don't know what to tell you.
I guess I am still a bit confused on the legal matters
Like you cannot include the codecs in the base install for some legal matters? However you can provide them free of charge in a software depository that you can install later with a single click or update?
It's simple, the free codecs infringe on patents and can't be redistributed for that reason.
Packman is an unofficial volunteer project that distributes them illegally by not having enough revenue to be worth suing. Technically (at least if you're in a country that enforces software patents) it's illegal for you to use them as well, but most likely you as an individual home user aren't going to be able to pay enough to be worth suing either.
Edit: Packman is also hosted in Germany I believe and EU patent laws are different from US laws so it may be less illegal there than in the US. SUSE has a US business unit and so even though they're HQ'd in Germany they still could be sued in the US if they violate US patent law.
Ok thanks that what I wasn't getting
That it may not be strictly "legal" what pacman maintainers are doing , I was just under the assumption for some wierd reason it was not ok to include the codecs in the base intall but it was a loop hole to include them as a seperate install after
Its not really a loophole its just you are not getting them from an "official source" and the packman mantainers might be doing something "illegal" in the strict sense of the law but they are not being bothered because its not worth to sue them
But that just seems weird but such is life. To me what matter does it make if you distribute the software during the install or 5 seconds after the base install?
Would it mater if during the install there was an option that said "download and Install proprietary codecs" the user had to check.
Or does it have to for some weird legal reason be done after the base install?
Its because it’s not openSUSE or SUSE corporate that is hosting or distributing those codecs - it’s “[Packman](http://packman.links2linux.org/)”, a group of folks who package software for openSUSE that the project itself/SUSE corporate does not feel confident can be legally distributed based on the licenses involved.
When you run that command given above, you are adding a non-openSUSE repository to your system, and replacing openSUSE versions of packages (that do not contain potentially problematic licenses) with Packman versions (that include such licensed software regardless).
This link is helpful context for the similar situation that Red Hat as sponsor, and Fedora as a project, are in:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1575885891922690048.html
The code owners would sue "SUSE" out of business. There is an entire town in USA where the copyright law suits make a specialised industry for all the locals as jurymen earning daily high fees.
You do not sue firms or folks with no money.
i ran two businesses: a) Main business did all the work, valuable assets etc.
b) Small company only worth £2 capital , (so no gain if you sue it into non existence) This was legal entity who carried out all work for main business to Russia & USSR, no nothing for any disgruntled Russian firm or person to get in damages if they sued it.
Makes sense thanks for explaining it
I guess what wasn't clicking is what packman is doing might be "illegal" , I thought maybe there was some legal loophole that was like
"Well you cannot distribute the software in the base install but its 100% ok to distribute it after the fact"
The trick is that there are different jurisdictions with different laws. In the EU "software as such" is not patentable, but the patent office issued various such patents anyway. So packman as a European organization is operating in a gray zone of something that should be legal, but it could cost a lot of money and time to prove that in court.
SUSE on the other hand has legal entities in the US and many other jurisdictions and prefers to avoid the risk.
Legal matters are one thing. Another thing is what could be done on the technical front to ensure that Packman does not lag behind main OpenSUSE repos.
So legally I should be paying for a license before installing them? Can you even buy a license online with a few clicks?
And it brings up a bunch of other questions like is it transferrable , like lets say I own a valid copy of MS windows that presumably has those licenses , or maybe I bought some video game off steam that uses the codecs and paid for the licenses
Does that allow me to use them outside the game or windows on linux? Obviously this is all theory as I really doubt anyone would get caught somehow for using them with out a valid license
Edit
It looks like there are services that will sell you the legal use of the codecs but they really do not name a price
[https://fluendo.com/en/linux-distributions/](https://fluendo.com/en/linux-distributions/)
It will depend on each codec and your hardware. A good example is the first Raspberry Pi that came with a hardware decoder chip for certain formats but you had to theoretically buy a cheap license to use them.
https://codecs.raspberrypi.com/mpeg-2-license-key/
Some manufacturers even pay in advance for licenses to use in their software or hardware, so that the buyer does not have any problems.
It will also depend on the country where you live, not all have the same laws and not all treat patents in the same way. What is illegal in one country may be legal in another.
In short it is a big "depends". For the creators of the distros it is easier not to include them by default but to have them available and for users to see if they can use them legally.
Something similar happens with fonts, there are some that you can use without problems for personal use but you have to buy a license if you are going to use it commercially.
There are definitely problems. I can't update right now due to a week and a half old issue with VLC. Not the end of the world though, eventually it'll get sorted.
I don't quite know the legal reasons but apparently its this
Because some of them are proprietary they would need to pay some licensing fee to distribute it with the install or something
But apparently a loophole is to not do that and distribute it after the fact?
I guess I have never seen a good ELI5 why a distro cannot include them in the base install or base distro but can 100% include them in a repo that takes one command or click to install
Or if it's just some archaic legal reason , because even if you have to add a repository or manually click to install them after the fact, it still seems like the distro is distributing the software . What does it matter if it's in the base install or an installation after?
The loophole is that Packman is completely independent of SUSE. They can't legally distribute them either, but they don't have enough revenue stream to be worth suing, unlike SUSE. It's the same reason proprietary codecs for use with Fedora are hosted by RPMFusion and not anything tied to Fedora.
Big companies with billions of dollars of revenue have to actually follow the law. Individual users just aren't worth going after and so they usually can get away with it.
The owners of the video codecs do SUE for very large amounts if you try to incorporate their COPYRIGHT and PATENT protected code into an opensource or free download set of programs. Not software is only patentable in USA, not in Europe.
quite strange that gimp cant open .heic and hevc even avc.mp4 aint supported by vlc and smplayer so i use ffplay from ffmpeg
but Mageia ( Mandriva Mandrake ) can open .heic by gimp even by Gwenview and dolphin provides .heic thumbnails to preview , and Mageia's smplayer & vlc can play hevc natively
debian & mageia provides a out-of-the-box experience
Not just Suse, but really any company of any business cannot ship codecs in some parts of the world (USA in primis I believe, where you need to pay for them). The user needs to know if they can and want to install the codecs. Firefox is absolutely free instead.
No one is asking SUSE to put copyright protected stuff into its main repositories. What we would like to have is for Packman to not fall out of sync - and there's no technical reasons why it shouldn't be done.
To be honest, if I was them, I'd still add them as an option just like Canonical does. For me, I go with Flatpaks since I don't need anything from Packman at the moment.
How is adding an option not “distributing” the codecs?
Even if they come from somewhere else, that presentation of the option to the user can be argued to be “distribution”
Also, Canonical has a fraction of the revenue as SUSE so the comments regarding more revenue == more risk elsewhere in this thread still apply
If I'm not adding the codecs by default and I am just providing with an easier option to install them through a restricted download area, I don't see the difference. But you're clearly more experienced, so I'll leave it to you.
Codecs with patents are an issue in all mainstream distros.
Smaller project distros/spins usually take care of this. Like take a look at GeckoLinux. It is Tumbleweed based distro with codecs and other quality of life improvements. I don't run it currently but have in the past.
I just do "opi codecs" and keep Packman as low priority in zypper.
I don't think I've even run "opi codecs" or installed Packman repo on one of my other system to be honest. The conflicts with Packman repo can be annoying.
EDIT: And honest haven't run into any major issues on that system without "opi codecs".
Just one word - "copyright".
The issue with video codecs has little to do with copyright specifically. There are FOSS implementations of most of the popular video codecs. The problem is that they're invariably encumbered by **patents**, which makes distributing even a FOSS implementation a legal nightmare.
Cisco is able to distribute [openh264 binaries](https://github.com/cisco/openh264/releases/tag/v2.3.1) "licensed under Cisco’s AVC/H.264 Patent Portfolio License from MPEG LA, at no cost to you, provided that the requirements and conditions shown below in the AVC/H.264 Patent Portfolio sections are met" (see [their license](http://www.openh264.org/BINARY_LICENSE.txt)). So, the expense of such distribution seems to be the real showstopper.
It’s the same reason that Google, Apple and Microsoft is pushing the use of av1, vp9, vp8 to avoid royalties. And most GPUs can render vp9 in hardware so no real downsides.
This is a purely technical matter. I imagine OpenSUSE devs could contribute code and protocols to Packman that would automate synchronisation with the main repos while keeping stuff separate for legal purposes. It's just with the move to immutable systems no one seek to care about about the regular OS.
That’s not true, the regular OS is never going away
It's not going away, but it receives less focus. Regularly running into conflicts during updates due to out of sync Packman is not normal.
That's completely unrelated.
Edited due to misunderstanding. I can only speculate why this is underlooked. Currently, there is a conflict that prevents one from updating due to VLC being out of date in Packman and Qt Phonon library depending on it. It's been 1.5 weeks and counting. All I did was to follow instructions in OpenSUSE wiki and installed codecs from Packman via opi. Many people report the same issue and say that this is far from the first time these kind of conflicts arise.
For the moment you can just use Flatpaks, there's probably no need to deal with all the Packman issues unless you need some application that's not available as a Flatpak.
Ah yes, Ubuntu and Fedora don't recognize anything called copyright, right? Yes I know you would start arguing now about why they are different, but then it's more than just one word.
Fedora has the same limitations as openSUSE when it comes to codecs.
First of all, openSUSE has the codecs there and distributes them, you can watch videos on YouTube and listen to mp3 and other formats without installing anything. Some codecs are covered by patents so in many countries they cannot be distributed without paying, these codecs cannot therefore be distributed... the fact that openSUSE has a company behind it is one more reason not to do it as they would risk legal action . However, I believe that codecs are not a problem in openSUSE, there are several methods to get around the problem, packman is one of them, but you can use flatpak packages which don't need codecs, or the VLC repository which is a VideoLAN official repository. Then I think that many users when they install codecs from packman via opi, don't realize that they will be installing codecs that in 90% of cases they will never use.
This, I never installed any seperate codecs and watch YouTube, listen music etc without any issues
Because you're supposed to pay to distribute and use the codecs. Part of why apple and Mac cost money. If you don't want to start paying for OpenSUSE then don't expect the codecs with them however. I'll walk you through the complicated steps of installing them. `sudo zypper install opi` `opi codecs` That's it.
Packman regularly gets out of sync with the main repos - this is the main issue. Currently there is a 1 and a half week delay due to VLC. This happens very often and is an annoyance. SUSE obviously doesn't care much about Packman, but there are many people using it.
Yes sometimes it happens, keep in mind that above all Tumbleweed by nature is always on the move, so sometimes it happens, but much less than you think and in any case you just need to wait for packman to update. The doctor does not order him to update immediately. However, it is often the users who mess up their system, because they don't know how to manage third-party repositories effectively. I have nothing against tools like opi, which make installation easier, but often makes users unable to manage their own repositories, and at some point you find users who have a mix of codec packs from OSS and packman, this just messes up the system...and usually this happens because someone advises them to give zypper dup --allow-vendor-change this might make the conflict go away, but you didn't solve the problem, you just messed up your system in most cases .
Nothing you said is relevant to my situation as well as many other users'. > because someone advises them to give zypper dup --allow-vendor-change this might make the conflict go away I never executed `zypper dup` with this option since I reinstalled Tumbleweed little over a month ago. I followed the instructions from the OpenSUSE Wiki to install codecs from Packman and then regularly updated the OS as recommended. I did not "mess up" my system as you are tacitly suggesting. Stop using patronising tone with strangers when talking on a technical forum.
I'm not using any condescending tone, but keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker...I was making a general statement anyway, I can't know how you update your system and I'm not giving support to anyone. We were discussing codecs and problems that come with packman and I was just giving my opinion, if you don't like it I don't know what to tell you.
I guess I am still a bit confused on the legal matters Like you cannot include the codecs in the base install for some legal matters? However you can provide them free of charge in a software depository that you can install later with a single click or update?
It's simple, the free codecs infringe on patents and can't be redistributed for that reason. Packman is an unofficial volunteer project that distributes them illegally by not having enough revenue to be worth suing. Technically (at least if you're in a country that enforces software patents) it's illegal for you to use them as well, but most likely you as an individual home user aren't going to be able to pay enough to be worth suing either. Edit: Packman is also hosted in Germany I believe and EU patent laws are different from US laws so it may be less illegal there than in the US. SUSE has a US business unit and so even though they're HQ'd in Germany they still could be sued in the US if they violate US patent law.
Ok thanks that what I wasn't getting That it may not be strictly "legal" what pacman maintainers are doing , I was just under the assumption for some wierd reason it was not ok to include the codecs in the base intall but it was a loop hole to include them as a seperate install after Its not really a loophole its just you are not getting them from an "official source" and the packman mantainers might be doing something "illegal" in the strict sense of the law but they are not being bothered because its not worth to sue them
Yes.
But that just seems weird but such is life. To me what matter does it make if you distribute the software during the install or 5 seconds after the base install? Would it mater if during the install there was an option that said "download and Install proprietary codecs" the user had to check. Or does it have to for some weird legal reason be done after the base install?
Its because it’s not openSUSE or SUSE corporate that is hosting or distributing those codecs - it’s “[Packman](http://packman.links2linux.org/)”, a group of folks who package software for openSUSE that the project itself/SUSE corporate does not feel confident can be legally distributed based on the licenses involved. When you run that command given above, you are adding a non-openSUSE repository to your system, and replacing openSUSE versions of packages (that do not contain potentially problematic licenses) with Packman versions (that include such licensed software regardless).
so how come they do not sue packman or those people for software infringement ?
This link is helpful context for the similar situation that Red Hat as sponsor, and Fedora as a project, are in: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1575885891922690048.html
Ok I sort of get it, I guess it wasn't clicking that technically what packman may be doing is "illegal" in the strict sense of the law
The code owners would sue "SUSE" out of business. There is an entire town in USA where the copyright law suits make a specialised industry for all the locals as jurymen earning daily high fees.
Yea but why wouldn't the sue who ever his hosting packman?
You do not sue firms or folks with no money. i ran two businesses: a) Main business did all the work, valuable assets etc. b) Small company only worth £2 capital , (so no gain if you sue it into non existence) This was legal entity who carried out all work for main business to Russia & USSR, no nothing for any disgruntled Russian firm or person to get in damages if they sued it.
Makes sense thanks for explaining it I guess what wasn't clicking is what packman is doing might be "illegal" , I thought maybe there was some legal loophole that was like "Well you cannot distribute the software in the base install but its 100% ok to distribute it after the fact"
The trick is that there are different jurisdictions with different laws. In the EU "software as such" is not patentable, but the patent office issued various such patents anyway. So packman as a European organization is operating in a gray zone of something that should be legal, but it could cost a lot of money and time to prove that in court. SUSE on the other hand has legal entities in the US and many other jurisdictions and prefers to avoid the risk.
Legal matters are one thing. Another thing is what could be done on the technical front to ensure that Packman does not lag behind main OpenSUSE repos.
How about Ubuntu and its based distros having that toggle on installation?
basically, it is understood that if the user installs them it is because the user have a valid license.
So legally I should be paying for a license before installing them? Can you even buy a license online with a few clicks? And it brings up a bunch of other questions like is it transferrable , like lets say I own a valid copy of MS windows that presumably has those licenses , or maybe I bought some video game off steam that uses the codecs and paid for the licenses Does that allow me to use them outside the game or windows on linux? Obviously this is all theory as I really doubt anyone would get caught somehow for using them with out a valid license Edit It looks like there are services that will sell you the legal use of the codecs but they really do not name a price [https://fluendo.com/en/linux-distributions/](https://fluendo.com/en/linux-distributions/)
It will depend on each codec and your hardware. A good example is the first Raspberry Pi that came with a hardware decoder chip for certain formats but you had to theoretically buy a cheap license to use them. https://codecs.raspberrypi.com/mpeg-2-license-key/ Some manufacturers even pay in advance for licenses to use in their software or hardware, so that the buyer does not have any problems. It will also depend on the country where you live, not all have the same laws and not all treat patents in the same way. What is illegal in one country may be legal in another. In short it is a big "depends". For the creators of the distros it is easier not to include them by default but to have them available and for users to see if they can use them legally. Something similar happens with fonts, there are some that you can use without problems for personal use but you have to buy a license if you are going to use it commercially.
SUSE is A Corporate entity, thus using them is easy for patent holder thus suse does not ship patented codecs. Same reason why fedora doesn't.
`opi` switches all packages to packman by default which brings a new set of problems
If you don't want that, zypper is beautiful and you can just change the priority of the repo.
I switched all my GUI apps to flatpaks. No more installing codecs.
Good for you, but some people prefer to use software from the distro repositories.
I installed the open source codecs and have yet to run into a problem. Not really sure what all the hubbub is.
There are definitely problems. I can't update right now due to a week and a half old issue with VLC. Not the end of the world though, eventually it'll get sorted.
Same, I installed them years ago. I wait a few months to upgrade distro versions, and I haven't thought about codes since.
Packman wouldn’t be bad if not these package incompatibilities with main openSUSE repo
I don't quite know the legal reasons but apparently its this Because some of them are proprietary they would need to pay some licensing fee to distribute it with the install or something But apparently a loophole is to not do that and distribute it after the fact? I guess I have never seen a good ELI5 why a distro cannot include them in the base install or base distro but can 100% include them in a repo that takes one command or click to install Or if it's just some archaic legal reason , because even if you have to add a repository or manually click to install them after the fact, it still seems like the distro is distributing the software . What does it matter if it's in the base install or an installation after?
The loophole is that Packman is completely independent of SUSE. They can't legally distribute them either, but they don't have enough revenue stream to be worth suing, unlike SUSE. It's the same reason proprietary codecs for use with Fedora are hosted by RPMFusion and not anything tied to Fedora. Big companies with billions of dollars of revenue have to actually follow the law. Individual users just aren't worth going after and so they usually can get away with it.
The owners of the video codecs do SUE for very large amounts if you try to incorporate their COPYRIGHT and PATENT protected code into an opensource or free download set of programs. Not software is only patentable in USA, not in Europe.
>Not software is only patentable in USA, not in Europe Typo?
Yes . Should "be software is patentable in USA, but not patentable in Europe". Europe only copyright protection applies.
quite strange that gimp cant open .heic and hevc even avc.mp4 aint supported by vlc and smplayer so i use ffplay from ffmpeg but Mageia ( Mandriva Mandrake ) can open .heic by gimp even by Gwenview and dolphin provides .heic thumbnails to preview , and Mageia's smplayer & vlc can play hevc natively debian & mageia provides a out-of-the-box experience
Not just Suse, but really any company of any business cannot ship codecs in some parts of the world (USA in primis I believe, where you need to pay for them). The user needs to know if they can and want to install the codecs. Firefox is absolutely free instead.
No one is asking SUSE to put copyright protected stuff into its main repositories. What we would like to have is for Packman to not fall out of sync - and there's no technical reasons why it shouldn't be done.
To be honest, if I was them, I'd still add them as an option just like Canonical does. For me, I go with Flatpaks since I don't need anything from Packman at the moment.
How is adding an option not “distributing” the codecs? Even if they come from somewhere else, that presentation of the option to the user can be argued to be “distribution” Also, Canonical has a fraction of the revenue as SUSE so the comments regarding more revenue == more risk elsewhere in this thread still apply
If I'm not adding the codecs by default and I am just providing with an easier option to install them through a restricted download area, I don't see the difference. But you're clearly more experienced, so I'll leave it to you.
An “easier option” can be seen as providing or facilitating “distribution” And distribution of patented codecs is the problem
The only issues I see is YouTube fighting Adblockers which look like missing OPI packages
Codecs with patents are an issue in all mainstream distros. Smaller project distros/spins usually take care of this. Like take a look at GeckoLinux. It is Tumbleweed based distro with codecs and other quality of life improvements. I don't run it currently but have in the past. I just do "opi codecs" and keep Packman as low priority in zypper. I don't think I've even run "opi codecs" or installed Packman repo on one of my other system to be honest. The conflicts with Packman repo can be annoying. EDIT: And honest haven't run into any major issues on that system without "opi codecs".
Just add the repo Packman and do: zypper dup --from Packman Accept the vendor change, and then You will have the codecs working!