Is Real Alternative legitimate?

[Jem Berkes]

Real Alternative is listed at many freeware sites, including
www.pricelessware.org (and my own www.cleansoftware.org). I received this
email from someone suspicious that it is 'warez'. The writer claimed,

Real Alternative is package of two parts: Real Media codecs
+ multimedia player. Someone ripped off Real Media codecs from
Real Player bundle (which is probably illegal), added Media Player
Classic (forgot to add text of GNU/GPL - another violation of
license) and now many people try to distribute the package (third
violation - even the original Real Media Player bundle cannot be
freely redistributed).

Now, I think they're wrong about Media Player Classic. The software does
include a note indicating the GNU GPL license, so MPC is legitimate.

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does anyone
have any evidence either way? Does Real have any complaints about Real
Alternative?

 

[Jem Berkes]

Real Alternative is listed at many freeware sites, including

www.pricelessware.org (and my own www.cleansoftware.org). I received
this email from someone suspicious that it is 'warez'. The writer
claimed,

Sorry, I meant www.pricelesswarehome.org (Pricelessware 2005)

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does
anyone have any evidence either way? Does Real have any complaints
about Real Alternative?

Anyway, I have also sent the question directly to Real and will report what
I hear back from them.

 

[Onno Tasler]

Jem Berkes scribebat:

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does anyone
have any evidence either way?

Take a look at the files installed (the DLLs in the "codecs" folder) you
will find that most of them identify the "company" as "RealNetworks, Inc.",
not to mention that there is a clear copyright notice "Copyright(c)
RealNetworks, Inc. 1995-2003." in most of them. Some (not all!) have the
addition "All rights reserved. Source code for this program is available
under the RealNetworks Public Source License." though.

There is something suspicious about QuickTime Alternative too, if you
install it you will find the usual QuickTime entry in the system control
page -- stating you would be using a registered version of QuickTime Prof.

Does Real have any complaints about Real Alternative?

Even if they do not complain, that does not mean redistribution would be
legible. They might not be aware of it or simply tolerate it -- I expect
the last.

 

[jo]

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does anyone
have any evidence either way? Does Real have any complaints about Real
Alternative?

I recall Real gettng upset a few years back. I looked for evidence of
this recently and found none.
Dunno what the current situation is.

 

[Vegard Krog Petersen]

Real Alternative is listed at many freeware sites, including
www.pricelessware.org (and my own www.cleansoftware.org). I received this
email from someone suspicious that it is 'warez'. The writer claimed,

Real Alternative is package of two parts: Real Media codecs
+ multimedia player. Someone ripped off Real Media codecs from
Real Player bundle (which is probably illegal), added Media Player
Classic (forgot to add text of GNU/GPL - another violation of
license) and now many people try to distribute the package (third
violation - even the original Real Media Player bundle cannot be
freely redistributed).

Now, I think they're wrong about Media Player Classic. The software does
include a note indicating the GNU GPL license, so MPC is legitimate.

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does anyone
have any evidence either way? Does Real have any complaints about Real
Alternative?

Found some information here:
http://www.dashes.com/anil/2004/01/08/a_real_alternat
http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/finalbuilds.htm#realalt

--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway

My sites:

 

[Sweet Andy Licious]

I recall Real gettng upset a few years back. I looked for evidence of
this recently and found none.
Dunno what the current situation is.

I've been using Real Alternative for a few years now. It plays all my stuff
except MP4, which I use VLC player with. Real (the Real Real Networks)
player is a phone home goodie. If they had not been so paranoid about
tracking you Real Alt would not need to be. Illegal or not, I think even
Real has realized (no pun intended) that it's useless to try to stop these
people.

 

[Jem Berkes]

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does

Found some information here:
http://www.dashes.com/anil/2004/01/08/a_real_alternat

Yup, that one is interesting.

This much I know... there is open source software that is capable of
decoding Real content. This is demonstrated by the UNIX versions of
RealPlayer/Helix - see source at http://freshmeat.net/projects/realplayer

So there are non-proprietary codecs for Real content. But I'm not sure
that's what Real Alternative uses.

 

[Jem Berkes]

Some (not all!) have the addition "All rights reserved. Source code

for this program is available under the RealNetworks Public Source
License." though.

That would indicate the files come from the open source Helix project,
https://helixcommunity.org/

 

[Bob Adkins]

Real Alternative is listed at many freeware sites, including
www.pricelessware.org (and my own www.cleansoftware.org). I received this
email from someone suspicious that it is 'warez'. The writer claimed,

Real Alternative is package of two parts: Real Media codecs
+ multimedia player. Someone ripped off Real Media codecs from
Real Player bundle (which is probably illegal), added Media Player
Classic (forgot to add text of GNU/GPL - another violation of
license) and now many people try to distribute the package (third
violation - even the original Real Media Player bundle cannot be
freely redistributed).

Now, I think they're wrong about Media Player Classic. The software does
include a note indicating the GNU GPL license, so MPC is legitimate.

But what about the other claim, that the codecs are stolen? Does anyone
have any evidence either way? Does Real have any complaints about Real
Alternative?

If Real wants a legitimate share of the market, and wants their proprietary
CODEC's to be left unmolested, they should clean up their poisonous Real
Player. If it were decent and clean, nobody would find a need to use Real
Alternatives.

Instead of prosecuting the CODEC thieves, Real should wake up their software
development department.

-- Bob