Linux TVs

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. Interesting to hear that Samsung are building TV sets that run on Linux,
    taking advantage of the multimedia crunching power of FFmpeg (February
    Australian PC User magazine, pages 29 & 45).

    So much for the hoary old claim that open-source products are the poor
    cousins of proprietary ones in terms of features and innovation, when a
    major vendor of consumer products can actually depend on Open Source to gain
    an edge over the competition.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 1, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    geoff wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> Interesting to hear that Samsung are building TV sets that run on
    >> Linux, taking advantage of the multimedia crunching power of FFmpeg
    >> (February Australian PC User magazine, pages 29 & 45).
    >>
    >> So much for the hoary old claim that open-source products are the poor
    >> cousins of proprietary ones in terms of features and innovation, when
    >> a major vendor of consumer products can actually depend on Open
    >> Source to gain an edge over the competition.

    >
    > Um, Linux would not likely be for mundane housekeeping such as the setup
    > menu, etc. Not the video processing !
    >
    > geoff
    >
    >




    How do you suppose a TiVo processes video ?

    All Samsung have to do is go to a developer like Fluendo and get a
    badged version of something like http://www.moovida.com/
    victor, Feb 1, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    geoff wrote:
    > victor wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> How do you suppose a TiVo processes video ?

    >
    > Dedicated video processing DSP chips using their native machine code.
    >
    > geoff
    >
    >


    So you think it performs all the compositing and scaling of video on a
    vga card ?
    victor, Feb 1, 2010
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Cima Guest

    Let me guess, you need to punch in some obscure code on the remote to change
    channels ;-)
    Cima, Feb 1, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-02-01, impossible <> wrote:
    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:hk59kr$t6g$...
    >> Interesting to hear that Samsung are building TV sets that run on Linux,
    >> taking advantage of the multimedia crunching power of FFmpeg (February
    >> Australian PC User magazine, pages 29 & 45).
    >>

    >
    > "Run on Linux"? No, don't be ridiculous! Samsung uses FFmpeg like anyone
    > else would -- as an add-on feature to record, convert and stream audio and
    > video.
    >
    >> So much for the hoary old claim that open-source products are the poor
    >> cousins of proprietary ones in terms of features and innovation, when a
    >> major vendor of consumer products can actually depend on Open Source to
    >> gain
    >> an edge over the competition.

    >
    > Open-source products are completely proprietary.
    >
    > According to the authors of FFmpeg , "If you end up violating the LGPL, you
    > will likely end up on our shame list and/or get sued by us."
    >

    Indeed. All open scource is copyrighted. Break the conditions and someone
    will be after the code and/or money.
    Gordon, Feb 1, 2010
    #5
  6. In message <>, Gordon wrote:

    >> Open-source products are completely proprietary.
    >>
    >> According to the authors of FFmpeg , "If you end up violating the LGPL,
    >> you will likely end up on our shame list and/or get sued by us."
    >>

    > Indeed. All open scource is copyrighted. Break the conditions and someone
    > will be after the code and/or money.


    The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take away
    other people’s freedom.

    As for trying to explain that fact to certain Dimdows trolls, what Upton
    Sinclair said would seem to apply: “It is difficult to get a man to
    understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.â€
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 1, 2010
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mary Hanna Guest

    On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:09:47 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >Interesting to hear that Samsung are building TV sets that run on Linux,
    >taking advantage of the multimedia crunching power of FFmpeg (February
    >Australian PC User magazine, pages 29 & 45).
    >
    >So much for the hoary old claim that open-source products are the poor
    >cousins of proprietary ones in terms of features and innovation, when a
    >major vendor of consumer products can actually depend on Open Source to gain
    >an edge over the competition.




    Panasonic does the same as my TV stated it..
    Mary Hanna, Feb 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <>, Gordon wrote:
    >
    >>> Open-source products are completely proprietary.
    >>>
    >>> According to the authors of FFmpeg , "If you end up violating the LGPL,
    >>> you will likely end up on our shame list and/or get sued by us."
    >>>

    >> Indeed. All open scource is copyrighted. Break the conditions and someone
    >> will be after the code and/or money.

    >
    > The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take away
    > other people’s freedom.
    >


    Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.

    http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/

    which means that others have the freedom to modify it.

    http://hackaday.com/2009/10/18/samsung-tv-firmware-hacking/
    http://samygo.sourceforge.net/
    http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/samygo/index.php?title=Main_Page
    victor, Feb 1, 2010
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    geoff wrote:
    > victor wrote:
    >> geoff wrote:
    >>> victor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> How do you suppose a TiVo processes video ?
    >>> Dedicated video processing DSP chips using their native machine code.
    >>>
    >>> geoff
    >>>
    >>>

    >> So you think it performs all the compositing and scaling of video on a
    >> vga card ?

    >
    > Yer wot ?!! Where did I mention a vga card ?
    >
    > geoff
    >
    >

    A TiVo has onboard display hardware like an all in one motherboard, its
    essentially the same thing.
    These TVs run a linux kernel, alsa sound, DirectFB framebuffer etc
    http://www.directfb.org/

    The Sony Bravia LG and Philips TVs also linux probably the Montavista
    embedded distro
    victor, Feb 1, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org...
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>> In message <>, Gordon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Open-source products are completely proprietary.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> According to the authors of FFmpeg , "If you end up violating the
    >>>>> LGPL,
    >>>>> you will likely end up on our shame list and/or get sued by us."
    >>>>>
    >>>> Indeed. All open scource is copyrighted. Break the conditions and
    >>>> someone
    >>>> will be after the code and/or money.
    >>>
    >>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take
    >>> away other people’s freedom.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>
    >> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/
    >>

    >
    > Obliged? No, you're mincing words. Samsung is **required** to publish
    > the source code under terms of the license.



    So thats an obligation then



    If Samsung were actually
    > free to publish or not publish the source code as they freely chose,
    > then the authors of FFmpeg would have no recourse under law. Just as
    > with any proprietary license, if Samsung wants to use GPL'd software
    > then they have to meet the terms and conditions of the intellectual
    > property owners.
    >
    >> which means that others have the freedom to modify it.
    >>
    >> http://hackaday.com/2009/10/18/samsung-tv-firmware-hacking/
    >> http://samygo.sourceforge.net/
    >> http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/samygo/index.php?title=Main_Page

    >
    > Yes, so long as others also adhere to the GPL requirement that they
    > publsih the source code.



    Duh !
    victor, Feb 2, 2010
    #10
  11. In message <hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take away
    >> other people’s freedom.

    >
    > Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >
    > http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/


    Only because they’re redistributing the code. If they were only using it
    internally, there would be no obligation to publish.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 2, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message <hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take away
    >>> other people’s freedom.

    >> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>
    >> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/

    >
    > Only because they’re redistributing the code. If they were only using it
    > internally, there would be no obligation to publish.


    What if you were leasing the tv from them, and never owned it?
    Richard, Feb 2, 2010
    #12
  13. In message <hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take away
    >> other people’s freedom.

    >
    > Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >
    > http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/


    It’s good that they are aware of their copyleft obligations. Some other
    embedded vendors have needed a little prodding
    <http://lwn.net/Articles/370308/>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 2, 2010
    #13
  14. In message <hk90q9$ql7$>, Richard wrote:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take
    >>>> away other people’s freedom.
    >>>
    >>> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/

    >>
    >> Only because they’re redistributing the code. If they were only using it
    >> internally, there would be no obligation to publish.

    >
    > What if you were leasing the tv from them, and never owned it?


    Commonsense would dictate that the point of copyleft is to guarantee the
    freedoms of whoever owns/controls/is responsible for the hardware and
    software system.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 2, 2010
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mary Hanna Guest

    On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:24:45 -0600, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    >"victor" <> wrote in message
    >news:hk86ja$ka3$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org...
    >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>> In message <>, Gordon wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Open-source products are completely proprietary.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> According to the authors of FFmpeg , "If you end up violating the
    >>>>>>> LGPL,
    >>>>>>> you will likely end up on our shame list and/or get sued by us."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Indeed. All open scource is copyrighted. Break the conditions and
    >>>>>> someone
    >>>>>> will be after the code and/or money.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take
    >>>>> away other people’s freedom.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Obliged? No, you're mincing words. Samsung is **required** to publish the
    >>> source code under terms of the license.

    >>
    >>
    >> So thats an obligation then
    >>
    >>

    >
    >An obliagtion that can be enforced in a court od law, yes.
    >
    >>
    >> If Samsung were actually
    >>> free to publish or not publish the source code as they freely chose, then
    >>> the authors of FFmpeg would have no recourse under law. Just as with any
    >>> proprietary license, if Samsung wants to use GPL'd software then they
    >>> have to meet the terms and conditions of the intellectual property
    >>> owners.
    >>>
    >>>> which means that others have the freedom to modify it.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://hackaday.com/2009/10/18/samsung-tv-firmware-hacking/
    >>>> http://samygo.sourceforge.net/
    >>>> http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/samygo/index.php?title=Main_Page
    >>>
    >>> Yes, so long as others also adhere to the GPL requirement that they
    >>> publsih the source code.

    >>
    >>
    >> Duh !

    >
    >Duh, indeed. The GPL giveth freedom in some respects and taketh it away in
    >others. Just like any proprietary license.




    Here is the software list for my Panasonic TV, other TV's are listed.

    http://www.am-linux.jp/dl/EUIDTV6/

    My TV has 50 pages of GLP info and so does the above site
    Mary Hanna, Feb 2, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:hk90c2$2ln$...
    >> In message <hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take
    >>>> away
    >>>> other people’s freedom.
    >>>
    >>> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/

    >>
    >> Only because they’re redistributing the code. If they were only using it
    >> internally, there would be no obligation to publish.

    >
    > That's right, Larry. As the intellectual property owner, the authors of
    > FFmpeg can freely impose whatever conditions of use they choose. No
    > different from any proprietarty license arrangement in that sense.
    >
    >

    No they can't, because they have given the software away, they have no
    contract with the recipient.
    They only have copyright, patent, trademark protection.
    They have no say in the usage, only the distribution.
    A EULA is a completely different license, you have to agree to it to use
    the software.
    victor, Feb 2, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mary Hanna Guest

    Re: Linux TVs FACTS

    On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:24:45 -0600, "impossible" <> wrote:

    >
    >"victor" <> wrote in message
    >news:hk86ja$ka3$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "victor" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org...
    >>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>> In message <>, Gordon wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Open-source products are completely proprietary.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> According to the authors of FFmpeg , "If you end up violating the
    >>>>>>> LGPL,
    >>>>>>> you will likely end up on our shame list and/or get sued by us."
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> Indeed. All open scource is copyrighted. Break the conditions and
    >>>>>> someone
    >>>>>> will be after the code and/or money.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to take
    >>>>> away other people’s freedom.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Obliged? No, you're mincing words. Samsung is **required** to publish the
    >>> source code under terms of the license.

    >>
    >>
    >> So thats an obligation then
    >>
    >>

    >
    >An obliagtion that can be enforced in a court od law, yes.
    >
    >>
    >> If Samsung were actually
    >>> free to publish or not publish the source code as they freely chose, then
    >>> the authors of FFmpeg would have no recourse under law. Just as with any
    >>> proprietary license, if Samsung wants to use GPL'd software then they
    >>> have to meet the terms and conditions of the intellectual property
    >>> owners.
    >>>
    >>>> which means that others have the freedom to modify it.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://hackaday.com/2009/10/18/samsung-tv-firmware-hacking/
    >>>> http://samygo.sourceforge.net/
    >>>> http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/samygo/index.php?title=Main_Page
    >>>
    >>> Yes, so long as others also adhere to the GPL requirement that they
    >>> publsih the source code.

    >>
    >>
    >> Duh !

    >
    >Duh, indeed. The GPL giveth freedom in some respects and taketh it away in
    >others. Just like any proprietary license.




    Here is the software list for my Panasonic TV, other TV's are listed.

    http://www.am-linux.jp/dl/EUIDTV6/

    My TV has 50 pages of GLP info and so does the above site
    Mary Hanna, Feb 2, 2010
    #17
  18. In message <hk9u9m$bq8$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    >> As the intellectual property owner, the authors of
    >> FFmpeg can freely impose whatever conditions of use they choose. No
    >> different from any proprietarty license arrangement in that sense.


    Except they didn’t impose any proprietary licence in any sense. They used a
    licence that gives everyone the same rights they have.

    > No they can't, because they have given the software away, they have no
    > contract with the recipient.
    > They only have copyright, patent, trademark protection.


    Copyright only, no patents or trademarks.

    > They have no say in the usage, only the distribution.
    > A EULA is a completely different license, you have to agree to it to use
    > the software.


    The giveaway is the “A†in “EULAâ€â€”the fact that you have to explicitly agree
    to it is what indicates that it’s a contract, not a licence.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 2, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "victor" <> wrote in message
    > news:hk9u9m$bq8$-september.org...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>> message news:hk90c2$2ln$...
    >>>> In message <hk7ii8$pjg$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The only freedom the GPL/LGPL doesn’t give you is the right to
    >>>>>> take away
    >>>>>> other people’s freedom.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Which means that Samsung are obliged to publish the source code.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.samsung.com/global/opensource/
    >>>>
    >>>> Only because they’re redistributing the code. If they were only
    >>>> using it
    >>>> internally, there would be no obligation to publish.
    >>>
    >>> That's right, Larry. As the intellectual property owner, the authors
    >>> of FFmpeg can freely impose whatever conditions of use they choose.
    >>> No different from any proprietarty license arrangement in that sense.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> No they can't, because they have given the software away, they have no
    >> contract with the recipient.
    >> They only have copyright, patent, trademark protection.

    >
    > Copyright is what conveys intellectual property rights. The authors of
    > FFmpeg are free to release their software under any and all terms they
    > choose..
    >
    >> They have no say in the usage, only the distribution.

    >
    > Copyright holders have an exclusive right to set the terms and conditons
    > of both use and distribution. No one else can do that.
    >
    > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
    >
    > "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1)
    > assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving
    > you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it."
    >



    "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
    covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running
    the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is
    covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
    (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that
    is true depends on what the Program does. "


    "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
    it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
    the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law
    if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
    distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you
    indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
    conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works
    based on it. "
    >
    >> A EULA is a completely different license, you have to agree to it to
    >> use the software.

    >
    > No, you don't. All. you have to do is acknowledge that you've read the
    > license (and that's purely a matter of convention). Compliance with the
    > EULA (and with the GPL) is the important issue -- it's not a matter of
    > taking some blood oath. Either way, if you don't comply, you can be sued.


    A EULA stipulates the conditions of usage, it is not concerned with
    copyright. It is covered by contract law, not the copyright act. Copying
    and distribution is covered by copyright law.
    The EULA is a set of restrictions you must comply with to use the program.
    The GPL is only concerned with granting copying and distribution rights
    not otherwise permitted by copyright law.
    There are no restrictions on the use of the program, and the GPL
    prohibits you from adding restrictive conditions.
    victor, Feb 3, 2010
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Mary Hanna Guest

    Re: Linux TVs FACTS

    On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:24:45 -0600, "impossible" <> wrote:



    Here is the software list for my Panasonic TV, other TV's are listed.

    http://www.am-linux.jp/dl/EUIDTV6/

    My TV has 50 pages of GLP info and so does the above site
    Mary Hanna, Feb 3, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Papa Joe
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    709
  2. zxcvar

    Hotel TVs - Do they have connection for Video cable?

    zxcvar, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,103
    Larry Caldwell
    Aug 8, 2003
  3. Robert Meyers

    Contax TVS Digital, Any good?

    Robert Meyers, Dec 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    475
    Hans H. Siegrist
    Dec 19, 2003
  4. Nick

    Questions about 5 mgpixel Contax TVS

    Nick, Apr 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    318
    David Kilpatrick
    Apr 2, 2004
  5. goofything
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,252
Loading...

Share This Page