6756234
story
Comments: 175 +- Linux: Skype For Linux To Be Open-Sourced "In the Nearest Future" on Monday November 02, @09:39AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccommunications.gif); width:96px; height:62px;
communications
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiclinux.gif); width:60px; height:70px;
linux
rysiek writes "Seems like there might be a revolution in the works, as far as VoIP software for Linux is concerned. After mailing Skype support about Skype providing Mandriva RPM packages, Olivier Faurax got an answer which suggests that the Linux Skype client will be open-sourced. After asking for verification of whether that was the case, the tech support answer claimed it is going to happen, and that it's supposed to happen 'in the nearest future.' Now, this probably only means the client (the underlying protocol will probably be handled by a binary-only library), but even if that's the case, it seems like there is still reason to celebrate."
Related Stories
Because I don't need to worry about finances I can ignore Microsoft
and take over the (computing) world from the grassroots.
-- Linus Torvalds
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Yay (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yay (Score:4, Informative)
You can do that without Skype's source code. There are plenty of SIP clients out there and in fact an entire PBX system for Linux that includes the ability to war dial and use text to speech scripts on calls already.
I'd almost wager someone has already written an asterisk script to order for them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Asterisk supports Skype [digium.com]. As does FreeSWITCH [freeswitch.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It is not opensource, until... (Score:3, Insightful)
The source is not open, until I can build and use it on FreeBSD/amd64 or some other "exotic" platform like that...
Interestingly, the oft-criticized Java has always been more "open-sourced" (even before going GPL), than what the excited write-up is preparing to "celebrate"... Must all be about managing expectations
GUI Code Only (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite open source then, but I guess it's better than the situation right now. Still no way of ensuring there are no backdoors in the encryption though.
Re:GUI Code Only (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're assuming you can feed anything into their comms layer. I suspect there'll be a heavy duty validation / sanity checking at that point already.
Re:GUI Code Only (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have the client code, you can pre-encrypt before the communications layer if you need the added security.
*Could* that be possible, you would lose interoperability with windows clients, so why not relying on one of the truly foss voip projects availble?
Parent
Re:GUI Code Only (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a truly foss voip project requires a server or open ports on at least 1 side.
Skype requires only 2 clients that speak the same protocol, the skype network handles the rest.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a truly foss voip project requires a server or open ports on at least 1 side.
Plenty of free public SIP servers on the internet...
Skype requires only 2 clients that speak the same protocol, the skype network handles the rest.
I'm unclear on why you think that relying on the existence of a single proprietary network is better than relying on a SIP server (which may or may not be operated by yourself and you can switch to a different independent server if you want).
Re:GUI Code Only (Score:5, Interesting)
*Could* that be possible, you would lose interoperability with windows clients, so why not relying on one of the truly foss voip projects availble?
I recently took my Warcraft guild down a voice-comm path from Ventrilo to Mumble. Mumble had a lot of things going for it - open source, penny-for-a-year server deal, and a much better experience overall. Everyone could hear everyone and the software worked great without a hitch. That being said, as of today we are back on Vent.
See, while it worked great for us, no one else had ever heard of it, and no one would switch to it just for the benefit of talking to us. In the end we found Mumble made our lives more complex and in sum-total was not a better choice than Ventrilo.
Vis-à-vis Skype - yes you would need a special client to handle encryption, but a simple checkbox could re-enable traffic with those Windows clients. What truly foss voip project inter-operates with those?
Parent
Re:GUI Code Only (Score:5, Insightful)
It wouldn't work at all. Nearly all voip, and I'm sure Skype is no exception, uses lossy compression for the audio. If you stuff encrypted data in, you'll just get garbage out.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much, as long as you could change the front-end to use some other VOIP protocol other than Skype. In fact, what I'd like to see is something like Pidgin for VOIP. Transparent support for many protocols. Then you can just have your contact list of friends and call them, regardless of what they use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
sounds a bit like how the N900's phone and messaging system will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, it's not really open source. But it does allow a whole range of new applications. For instance: sipskype bridges (for asterisk or any other pbx).
WTF is "the nearest future"? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm trying to grasp what could possibly be the "nearest future"? A picosecond from now? But of course, you could have half a picosecond, and half that, and half that, etc.
Re:WTF is "the nearest future"? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Keep halving it and eventually you'll be in the present.
Re:WTF is "the nearest future"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but it'll take infinitely long to get there...
Parent
Re:WTF is "the nearest future"? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, it's impossible to be anywhere other than the present.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Free candy tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
lim future(t)
t->now+
This could be incredible... (Score:5, Interesting)
I use a lot of voice software on my laptop, and Skype is one of the few that is fine with my not using a headset. I'm not certain how it does it, but I assume they're filtering the sound coming out of the speakers against the mic input. I've always wanted to take Skype's client and plug it into, say, Ventrilo.
Could this open up that possibility?
Seems largely pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously, this is exactly why Skype would be OSSing the GUI and not the protocol binary blob; but it is also why the news isn't of much interest. As long as basically all the program's important functions depend on a binary blob you can't see what it is doing, you can't port it to other architectures, you are really no better off than if the whole thing were binary.
IOW (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes it is OSS. It's not GPL, but an open source frontend with the right license would still be OSS.
Re: (Score:2)
So then the Nvidia drivers are OSS right? I mean they ship with some open source parts.
FAIL
Re:IOW (Score:4, Informative)
The open source parts are open source (shocking!), just like an open source frontend on top of closed source libraries still is an open source frontend.
Is the full driver then open source, no. Is full Skype open source, no. But is the driver glue open source, yes. Is the frontend open source, yes.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes it is OSS. It's not GPL, but an open source frontend with the right license would still be OSS.
If the underlying driver isn't also GPL'd, then it's not open-source.
And as long as we don't have access to that underlying driver, we have no way to guarantee that there's no backdoor into our communications.
Of course, we already know that the Austrian interior ministry has confirmed it has no problem [h-online.com] listening to Skype conversations [theregister.co.uk].
If Austria can do it, it seems likely that other governments have that capability (even if they claim otherwise despite documentation to the contrary [wikileaks.org]).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that this isn't news, but I don't think it's pointless.
With the binary blob being available as library (well, it is speculated anyway), one can VoIP-enable one's own applications (whether it's an IM cilent or tech support tool) with a piece of code that is tested and is known to work well under all kinds of different configurations. A lot of the free VoIP out there isn't quite up to snuff, and requires a lot of end-user mucking around to get to work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good riddance, crappy ugly Skype client (Score:2)
Hopefully this means that libpurple, telepathy et al will be able to make Skype calls.
Once you get users out of a proprietary client, it's that much easier to transition them to a more open equivalent.
"You mean I just get a SIP account and calls cost less than with Skype?" Sold!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with transitioning of course is when they ask "how do I call my Skype buddies with SIP?"
It works for the calling-landlines case. For everyone else, there are SIP->Skype gateways like Gizmo5's OpenSky.
protocol will probably be ... binary-only (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, assuming the OP is right, they're basically open-sourcing a telephone where the only thing you can change is where the numbers are placed and what the handset looks like. Maybe I'm missing the point, but how does this benefit anyone?
Well, that's not a bad analogy at all... to answer your question by continuing it a bit, imagine "what the handset looks like" is "covered in spikes" and "where the numbers are placed" is "at random" on their default handset.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that having a bit more control of the implementation of sound would lead to less problems in the future (the constantly-moving linux sound architecture has until recently had Skype on a constant catch-up). Also could lead to integration with Pidgin or similar IM-aggregators, which wouldn't be a bad thing.
Did you RTFM ? (Score:2)
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit. I think it's just a tech support guy misunderstanding (and it seems a bi-lingual conversation so the chances of that are even higher).
Open-sourcing Skype is very different to allowing Mandriva to add a non-trademarked icon to the Skype software (a bit like bundling Firefox - fine so long as you respect the trademark on the name and/or the logo and their requirements), or put a Mandriva icon onto the package etc. The two are discussed interchangeably and I don't see how they are related.
I think it's more likely a massive misunderstanding on the basis of zero evidence / poor translation. At best, I reckon that Skype for Linux will allow itself to be packaged more easily.
How slashdot works (Score:5, Funny)
1) In a bilingual conversation, Skype support employee says "Skype will from now on be part of the open source community."
2) Blogger posts saying that Skype will be open sourced in nearest future
3) get reposted on various blogs
4) ???
5) Verified "news" on slashdot
Parent
Re:Nope (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cautiously Optimistic? (Score:2)
From a practical perpsective this is good news and a step forward.
However, if part of this "open source" announcement means a binary-blob needs to be included on an open-source OS (e.g. Linux) should we still be worried?
Off the top of my head I can think of graphics cards, wireless network adapters, software and scanner-type devices that need binary "blobs" to be usable.
I am worried because this could be a growing trend of reliance on companies policy of releasing binary only software onto a open-source OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you jumped to Linux without considering that it wasn't the end all be all solutions that you were told it was?
When switching from Windows to Linux you give certain things up, when switching from Windows to MacOS you give certain things up, and indeed when switching from Linux to * you give certain things up. If you didn't, they would all be equal/the exact same and you'd have no reason to switch at all.
Abandonware in 3....2....1.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same old story. The business doesn't want to support a Linux client so they open the code they have and abandon it.
I didn't bother reading TFA so maybe someone else can inform us how would one go about acquiring the binary blob in the future? What distros will the blob track? What about an ARM build? Ebay wants to limit their dev hours but abandoning the gui doesn't help them much.
Which is why I think they'll just abandon the OS altogether sooner rather than later and put a happy face on it with this stunt.
Official statement from Skype (Score:3, Informative)