When will be open source version for download?

That's awesome news!

You speak of an "open source UI".

Does this mean that the protocol will remain closed ? (as most people predict)
Will it be possible to third-party clients to use this closed lib to support the skype protocol ?

Thanks to Joerg for the news

Just want to ask it, but ofaurax was quickier.

good news.

@ofaurax You are correct on all points.

Great news. A step in the right direction. Ofaurax asks the questions we're all thinking of

ok, great news.

ok, this has to be fantastic news ^^
but i too second ofaurax's question. will at least the chat protocol open?

Great idea! I think this will cause Skype for Linux's popularity to explode. Sweeeeet.

That's awesome!

Skype will remain the best VoIP solution on Linux.

It is either open-source or not. If only UI code will be open with network code closed, it's not open-source nor free software at all.

So Skype just want community to help them develop UI for free without giving the community anything in return.

Berkus, I have been very critical and vocal in the past about the development of Skype for Linux. But this is excellent news, probably the best that ever came out of Skype.

Keep up the good work!

@mkryshen You are wrong. Skype is and has always been free software. Now we will open source the parts we _can_ open source. I think this is quite a good development.

@berkus why not open source every part of it? What is there to hide?

Please, please, please open source it for Android too.

Please please please don't forget to include support for 64bit versions from the start and for all supported platforms. (Still can't use Skype on my 64bit Fedora 11 system)

@sbkg0002 Every company has some IP they don't want to give up all at once.

Are there any timelines for any of this?

@berkus

I'm impressed Skype got this far becoming open source. Does this mean that other clients could use the aforementioned closed library to add support for Skype? Will a public API be made available for doing such a thing?

When will the open source part be made available? Will it be soon? How soon?

You can guess I'm really looking forward to this

What a joke. AMD are opensourcing their graphics drivers and Skype can't even opensource a stupid communication protocol. And saying that "Skype always has been free software" is simpy a lie, because in the Linux world, talking about "Free Software" doesn't have anything to with money.

Still, I acknowledge that you are at least doing a first step to recognise the Linux market.

Hopefully this will make headless Skype on Linux possible. This has been too long in development on your end. It seriously limits how Skype is used, especially on the chat front. Without at least a headless client and later on server API's, it's impossible to build real web chat etc solutions based on Skype. Even if the Joltid agreements and other licensing deals do not allow you to open-source everything, you should be able to legally interface at least chat, profiles, friend lists in a non-graphical way. The audio and video parts don't matter here at all.

Good luck!

@lamestars & sbkg0002

If Skype were only a chat client, or only Skype-to-Skype, then I don't think there would be a problem. But Skype lets you call actual phone numbers. If they opened up the protocol to the public, there's a great potential for someone to make their own client that would use Skype's service to call real phone numbers. That doesn't sound too bad, until you start thinking about how this could be abused. I'm sure telemarketers would jump all over that. Not to mention Skype would lose all their business, and be forced to pay for bandwidth from people with their own unauthorized clients.

Skype finally has the chance to be awesome on Linux. So stop complaining before Skype changes its mind.

Although Skype never was free-software in the Stallman's meaning (it was just gratis, not "libre"), I actually see the issue here in very practical terms. Integration of the Skype protocol (even if that remains closed source) with IM clients for linux (Empathy, Ekiga) can only be a good thing for the user. Many of the feature requests in the Skype client have to do with the front end. If the protocol is well designed with a strong open set of APIs, many of the compatibility problems with sound and video would also be easier to deal with. Feature additions will be also more dinamically implemented.

I am sure that is part of the reasons why non-skype specific parts of the client will be opened (Berkus, correct me if I am wrong). After all this is somehow what NVIDIA, and many wireless chipset company do with their Linux drivers.

@ quintesse

Actually skype do run on a 64bit linux distribution.

Try the DEB file here :
http://www.skype.com/intl/fr/download/skype/linux/choose/

does this mean that skype could be included on (k)ubuntu cds?

I gave up on Skype long time ago - because of almost useless client that had problems with ALSA/Pulseaudio. - not to mention the extremly bloated windows client that I feared would be ported to Linux.

this is a step in right direction, allowing Empathy/Pidgin and others to connect/use Skype - would be a reason to use it again..

berkus, this is really awesome news. How is it going to look like? I guess the best way would be to have the client fully open source except for some binary blob which contains Skypes IP. What about a "libskype" which contains the binary blob together some glue code, like the kernel module of the proprietary nVidia driver for instance. The "nv_kernel.o" is the same even among Linux, Solaris and FreeBSD and the glue code whose source is provided is used to "glue" the binary blob to your specific Linux kernel.

Also, if you had something like a "libskype", alot of IM projects would certainly start to implement a plugin for Skype.

Ah, it would *AWESOME* to use Skype within pidgin and even better if everything necessary would be in even in the distributions package list.

Please, please just do it and make thousands of Linux users HAPPY .

Thanks and Kudos,

Adrian

@bryce.jaggerjack:

That isn't guaranteed to work on other distros. In fact, the ELF header says that it is a 32-bit binary. My OS can only run 64-bit binaries. Period.

And open sourced client would be wonderful.

@berkus Clearly you don't understand what free software is. Skype never has been free software and ofaurax is 100% correct that an Open Source UI that requires closed libraries still doesn't qualify as free software. In order to be free all of the libraries

Making the UI Open Source is a welcome step in the right direction but there is still a long way to go. Hopefully your experience with this project will be a positive one and it will encourage Skype to take the extra steps needed to open the protocol and core libraries as well. After all the real value Skype provides is its service, not its software.

@Skype: Please don't blame J. for disclosing the news.
He certainly didn't realized that it was making such a powerful buzz about skype for linux.

He made the most efficient teasing you could dream of

So you'll be providing a binary-only library blob and an API for writers of GUIs or headless clients? That's great news.

Will you be providing this library for ARM-linux as well as x86? I'm specifically interested in armv5tel. I know it's not as simple as a recompile, and you've invested a lot of effort in obfuscation for x86, but you already support Nokia tablets and the iPhone - both based on ARM - so an ARM-linux library shouldn't be too hard...

I'm not interested in the GUI - I prefer a headless server hooked up to a cordless phone, and I'll write it myself if I have to.

Thanks!

YEEEEEES!!! Finally!.. Thank you so much!

I see some people here are still not quite satisfied, but I believe they shouldn't think so much about the final goal, but instead recognize the direction.. which is definitely the right one.

Reading these comments, I'm ashamed to be a Free software advocate. Skype being free software is not "a lie" (an intentional attempt to deceive), it's perfectly accurate. Look up "free" and "software" in a dictionary. We can't force everyone to use just one meaning of the word free. Skype has always been free gratis for computer to computer use.
Skype making the client open source is good news. One day, I hope it will become fully free as in freedom and open its protocol as well.

Skype Open Source: questions and answers, perhaps
http://ofaurax.free.fr/blog/index.php5/2009-11-03-00h40-0100.xml

there is skype for linux on the official site of skype.
if you cant install it on your distro maybe u shoud now more about linux.
whats this love about having everything in open source, im so glad skype is not such a frikkin instant messenger software like windows live or yahoo messenger with bunch of crap.

I wish the protocol getting opensource too ! Imagine this, it would be so great !
But, one stuff at a time...

@Bercus the worst i have ever seen is the skype version for android. i mean why should i pay for skype to skype calls? even on windows mobile, or the iphone this is free. will there be a new version for android?

Hello,
great movement, but please note that there is not only Linux outside here. People also use *BSD and now even Solaris on x86. It would really be great if your binary blob would be portable between various OSes (Unix) on the same architecture. That would finally make some hope to have skype client on Solaris -- which would be great personally for me, since this is what I'm using here.
Thanks for considering!
Karel

Great stuff. I work with a charity in Thailand and we need to promote Linux as they have no money to use expensive operating systems (legally at any rate).
Having Skype on Linux will let us speak to our volunteers and founders back home without too many obstructions. We were thinking Google Voice but Skype is well founded and used by everyone we know. Good call guys! (pun intended!)

That's nice news !

But since the protocol part will stay closed, I hardly see the point.
Or, Skype will have to provide a library file (.so) for all combination of plateform/unix/libc/etc...

Just on linux, I count:
* x86/pc/libc5, x86/pc/libc6,
* powerpc (different compilers - some with smashing protection some not), all flavour of powerpc,...
* arm9, arm11, cortex A8, ....each with eabi or old-abi, all combination of libc & uclibc
* mips32,mips64, same problem (several abi, several libc)
* fpga-based : nios for example

That's the emerging part of the iceberg.

Then reapeat that for NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD (for appliances).

When all is opensource, people themself do the recompilation, and patches if it's needed.
But with closed-source, how will skype do ?

If it's again a "Skype partnership" program , forget it : Usually small business or single-person company just don't go through the hassle.

I'm afraid it will be like Adobe's Flash system: Very few platform available, with never-ending commercial/legal/nda problems that will just kill creativity
(I still don't have flash on my Mips-based PC, nor that Flash v9 works on latest ARM PDA... What a great progress...)

Great news, thanks!
The Linux client is a pain in the a**, also using closed client libs made integration with other technologies impossible (Purple, Telepathy). It sucks and lags behind too much, I hope Skype will find easier to follow simplicity and integration principles of Linux software now.
I prefer OSS protocols, but in communications almost nobody I need to interact uses such thing, I also understand Skype policy of keeping the business profitable, so I don't care about the protocol much.
As said above: the current client doesn't work on 64 systems or other hardware platforms than x86, this move creates numerous possibilities!

@Berkus: My recommendation is to release the libraries as fast as possible, even if the GUI is not ready, to speed-up adoption.

@rynndragon what you say doesn't make any sense. There are VoIP providers using the SIP protocol (which is fully open: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Initiation_Protocol).
They all allow to make phone calls to landlines and mobiles often at prices even lower than Skype.
If Skype would open their protocol, it wouldn't make a difference for telemarketers.

Skype doesn't want to open their protocol for other reasons.

I feel I am mocked...

The web page title is "Skype open source Skype for linux" (at least that is what firefox 3.5.4 says)

unless the protocol is open sourced skype is not free. I would really like to know the reasons they do not do it. If they did they would probably dominate the unix users.

@Berkus

Just remember, when we talk about free software it means freedom, not cost. If Skype is not completely open source, then it's not free software.

@rharrison10, nspattak, jcemelanda & others

I'm not going to engage into a pointless debate of «free gratis» vs «free libre» software. Just a conclusion:

I don't see «free libre» overweighing «free gratis» POV inside Skype any time too soon. As I said above, there is IP we would like to protect, and therefore «free libre» part is not going to happen at once. Still, in the «free gratis» sense Skype is free software and I will continue to insist it is so.

"@berkus Clearly you don't understand what free software is."

Clearly, I do. I just don't take Stallman's single-minded POV on the term «Free Software».

From my side, this argument ends here.

@Berkus

It is great news. You have my complete support towards what you are doing, and I believe I am not alone here.

Ahhha. Well it's a good news, even if it's only the UI part. I mean, it's better than before, of course a fully open source offer would be the best.

But. Please make it in a way, that even if we must deal with a binary blob, make sure it does not interact with _any_ component of the OS directly. I mean: for example I can't use webcam with skype since a while, I have no idea why, just green garbage can be seen, any other softwares are happy with my webcam, so I don't think it's my system's fault. If the binary blob would not interact with the V4L devices and so on, but it let to the external (open source) code to do that, it would be much easier to understand/debug and correct these kind of problems. Also it would be great to convert skype into pidgin plugin and so, but not with the theory to have skype (as a separate program with UI, notification area icon etc etc) standalone and having some DBUS or whatever connection, but really as a plugin. And so on.

***Every company has some IP they don't want to give up all at once.***

Doesn't that translate to "We are very comfortable with the lock in it gives us, so we can perform less than stellar and still not have to fear people dumping us for better alternatives"?

If the Skype protocols had been documented and usable under RAND-Z licensing, Linux users would have dumped the Skype client for an alternative client like a hot potato. The only value the Skype client on Linux has is this lock-in in user base. It certainly isn't in the "innovation" of the client, but if we want to communicate, there is no way around Skype.

Oh, read up on the meaning of free in the community. What Skype means by free is free of charge, not what the community values most; freedom. So skype never was free software, just gratis. You talk to the community, not the other way around, so get with the lingo.

Maybe open sourcing the UI will at least give you the ability to release the same version on all platforms at once. Now you only need to find an obscure OSI license that is a real pain in the neck and keeps the walled garden around the UI intact.

Guys.... You need to give Berkus a break.

Everywhere I go in the community, there are endless battles over the word "free". Whether that be Fedora IRC chats, Ubuntu forums, Linux magazines etc... *yawn*. I completely understand the importance of open source. Trust me, I get it. But if you look at how and why open source software exists, then you'll see for companies like RedHat or Canonical, their revenue comes from business support using their Operating systems. Google make Chrome web browser and Android, but they're a marketing company, and that's where they get their revenue from. Clearly the concern for Skype is that they open up everything, and they get forked . By that I mean the very thing that generates their revenue gets superseded and competition occurs. It's not quite the same argument as, say nvidia's drivers, or ATI drivers etc...

Why do you actually care what the code looks like in the core IP part of the Skype software looks like? It's certainly of no concern of mine. What I *love* about the recent announcement is the fact that the much debated UI (it cannot ever please everyone) is to be opened up. Remember - some people ask for a simpler UI, others ask for a UI more like the Windows version. This is all people should be concerned about.

Providing the Skype linux team get the closed source bits right (excellent integration with pulseaudio, webcam support), then I'm excited to see what the community can come up with for different approaches to the UI. Maybe each distro will integrate it differently.

Honestly, I'm fighting berkus's corner here. I love open source software, I use it every day. That why I choose Linux over Windows, and why I feel that projects like KDE4 series can develop so quickly. But why have you all come here shouting and shouting the same dribble about open source ideals? It'd be nice to have a completely open Skype, but as far as I'm concerned, you folks should be looking forward to ripping the UI to pieces and coming up with something new.

And hey - Skype are better than some companies for Linux support. Can you use iTunes on Linux? Can you play your favourite PC game on Linux?

*buries head in sand*.

To all the "this is non free software" whinners around, please *grow up*.

By the way, that's why we have FOSS as in "Free *and* open-source software". So Skype is Free Software, not FOSS software. There, happy now ?

Skype is a company, they make a profit from Skype, they're not going to go free/libre overnight. It's a step in the right direction. It's taken them a long time, but at least they are doing it.

May I also remind you that a constructive attitude will do a lot more for the community than bitching about everything all the time because it's not _exactly_ what you wanted.

Thanks,
Francois

@rainbow-ron and others: Have you guys followed the IT-press the last couple of months ?
lawsuits left and right.

The original owner of Skype says eBay is only licensing the core technology ie. the protocol/encryption algorithms. A license to use is not ownership so they probably can't release the protos/algos without beeing sued.

* WARNING WARNING * Conspiracy theory * WARNING WARNING * Also, if they released the protocols/algos code the rumors about Skype cooperating with German government to install trojans to circumvent the encryption and allowing their police to listen in on conversations could be substantiated and that would be an embarrassment

I think the best we can hope for is:
* Open Source UI.
* Open Source API to call into binary blob to queue and dequeue audio/chat text without access to protocols/algorithms.

I'm hoping decrypted audio/text will be available to developers so that support for Skype can be added in for example Kopete or other IM clients and that the audio output/input can be handled by an other framework then Skype's own, for example Phonon/Solid in KDE4 to detect devices like headsets or speakers/mic-combos.

This is exciting news!

Personally, I'm hopeful it will help resolve the constant sound & video issues, since the transmission protocol is basically what will remain closed, right?

A BINARY BLOB THAT ONLY RUNS ON i386 IS NOT OPEN NOR FREE.

My largest problem with these quasi-open implementations is that I can't run most of them. Skype runs on the Nokia tablet, but what about the BeagleBoard with the same processor? What about a different ARM processor? What about PPC (old macintosh)? Or 64 bit native?

Source can cross architecture, binaries (normally) can't. And I can't do Qemu on the smaller processors and have it work.

So, does anyone here at Skype promise to create the "binary blob" for any architecture that linux supports when someone asks for it?

If not, then it will be no more open than it was. Allowing new skins is not making something open.

I also hope Skype becomes available on OpenSolaris. It would be great if the proprietary closed-source libraries would be provided pre-compiled for Linux 2.6 kernel, OpenSolaris x86 kernel, and BSD kernel. Then all the Linux/Solaris/BSD distributions could take on the work to compile and distribute the client.

Wow, seems like a whole bunch made about a whole bunch of 'meh'.

"Open sourcing" is the new black. Everyone does it for the buzz it creates.
The art is how you manage and present it this move. Berkus blew it. Plain and simple.
Doesnt make him a bad person but someone who hasnt paid attention of the mistakes others have made. What should have been a great announcement was badly presented and maaged.

For the record, I agree with the reader who said if you deal with a certain community, you have to deal with the lingo. If youre talking Linux, we ALL know what Free Software means. When I talk football in north america I say soccer even though everywhere else its the other because its understood that in that community football is the game played using your hands. Sure, it might seem idiotic to call it that but you adapt your language to the people you are addressing because your primary concern is to be understood by your target audience.

The problem with the announcement is that many of us who work/live in a FOSS environment went with the definition of free as in freedom that is common in the community (remember you can CHARGE for free software so free software DOES NOT have to be gratis. Really, look it up.) and were deflated when it ended up being the UI part that was opened.
Yes, its a nice start. Just like Nokia had to start off slowly until they went the full monty and GPLed Qt.
But just like KDE4 and so many others, its all in how you announce it.

Because when I look back, I never saw the words free software anywhere but the comments but instead the rather (now) meaningless open source was used. Its Berkus later maladresse which brought this on and the discussion veered off. The oil on fire comment later was sheer genius. Really, nice job. That's where he lost the control of the message.

When you dont prepare well, you can easily lose the plot.
Just like KDE4 did and so many others. You need people with experience who know the community and how messages can be perceived. Not seeing things from your point of view but from other's as well.

Instead of being "Wow, theyre gonna open up the UI. Who knows? Maybe its the first of a small series of steps (a la Nokia)' and all the positive vibe it can bring, the people were left with "Theyre only doing it for the buzzword but its still as closed as ever. And its not free software."
That is classic bad community management.
We actually teach this in some organizational behaviour courses at college.

But let's face it, in terms of 'to do', the GUI is not a top priority right now.
That's why its a meh announcement for many.

The audio is still hit and miss, as is webcam recognition and many other technical aspects. Those are priorities.
I dont discount the UI. Ive been hoping of minimizing the interface to a minimum like Trillian allowed me to 'just drag/drop a persons name on the desktop where there would be only the name and a on/off green icon'. Opening the UI up could make this happen.
I get the plus of opening up the UI. I just dont think its gonna bring more people when many still cant get it to work on Linux.
You know, Winamp used to allow me to skin the menu over a decade ago toolbar controls and placement isnt exactly unheard off.
Cosmetic changes are nice, but then again, most people I know use Skype this way: Click on name you want to call (the Linux version allows me to make the names BIG, really BIG), once connected you full screen the video and then who cares about the rest while you talk?
No one will join Skype that didnt already before because the UI is different now.
You join because of the list of names who use the service, the same reason you joined ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, and so on.
A few years ago, there was no competition to Skype, there is now but the exclusivity is what keeps people coming. (Not the UI).

On a side note, I dont think Skype will ever open the protocol because their business model is not geared towards openess. It would be great if Skype contacts could communicate with other apps but then Skype because an afterthought.
Still, many companies have through cross and dual licensing (You can release something as GPL and not) managed to keep themselves relevant.
And that's where I think the big challenge lies. How to benefit from free software (the GPL copyleft provision) while keeping a competitive advantage over others.

And if Francois wants to be 'baveux': you made a mistake by capitalizing Free Software to mean gratis. Really, youre not any better than those you diss. The first impression you gave is "Tres chiant ce mec".
Again, passive aggressive might work in your mind but people wont react the same way and you risk the chance of having the messenger being shot along with the message.

I hope Jono Bacon's book on community wrangling touches on the subject of controlling and managing (or massaging) your message.

does this mean that the open source client will be able to be used on linux OS phones? (like the pre & andriod)

if so, would you condone development on making a skype application for the pre which was said to be not developed until there is a market for it?

I must admit, I am not reassured that this won't just be a dump-n-run. After open-sourcing the client UI, Skype must stay around and continue to assist development, and must merge our changes fairly promptly.

And there must be a roadmap to open up the protocol specifications too.

I wander what all this "free as a bear" people does for the open source world, except for criticize what others are doing.

@berkus,

The fact is I cannot use your services as much as I would like, because many OSes and architectures just won't run x86 Linux binaries. If you provided system independent binaries for all widely used processors, OpenSourcing wouldn't be so much needed.
Still, you seem incapable to do something as simple as a 64-bit port. If it indeed is your IP that you are protecting(and not patent or license violations, code from third parties, or a weak protocol), I cannot understand your company.

People pay you for your services, specifically IP2phone and phone2IP, the client is nothing revolutionary. Other companies already exist that provide such services without your code. Your service is the best. Everyone else "stealing" your code would do no difference to your income.

Having people work for free to port the protocol to amd64/arm/mips etc. would actually increase your income!

Really, I cannot understand.

@berkus, great to know, and i m wondering when we'll be able to experience libskype

You opensource extremist religious nutters need to either get your heads out of your backsides, or shut up and go away. A business needs to make money to survive, skype is based on a protocol they created. Their business will vanish if they opensource it.

Skype offers extremely cheap calls to the entire world, a service I use and need. I appreciate their service and I pay for it.

I am a mainstream Linux desktop user, and I pay for Skype. I am extremely grateful for the support that Skype has given to Linux users in the past (when most major companies and manufacturers simply ignore us), and their ongoing support.

If none of these companies supplied any of their products for Linux, Linux would quickly vanish as a viable alternative desktop OS. And by vanish I mean being about as popular as FreeBSD!

To the Skype team - Please ignore the childish, selfish, ungrateful behaviour of the opensource extremists, they are a sad, loudmouthed minority in the Linux world with very little grasp of reality. I for one applaud your efforts.

Regards, Kevin.

@vlada6699 What a steaming pile of bs. Sorry, didn't finish reading it.

Interesting... IMHO, anything that goes to improve the somewhat 'hit & miss' hardware support is a great plus. As noted, Canonical do a great job with their commercial support of Ubuntu, people get Red Hat for support issues etc. That does not make them 'bad'. I do understand companies not selling the full insight of their system - Google Apps for email accounts for web sites is very good - everyone has a choice. The fact that they are opening up their thinking is great.

Phill.

If the code is organized like I think it is, then all interfacing with the hardware would technically be part of the UI code, simply because that has almost nothing to do with the protocol itself. The protocol itself should be a very small portion of the program, and it is that part that would be split and probably remain closed source.

Because of this, it would be possible to improve the UI code so that hardware issues become less likely. Also, being able to use Skype with other clients is another bonus. It is all a matter at how you look at it. In all fairness, the protocol isn't really that important. The UI code, which would include all platform based code, is the one that causes problems. By open sourcing that code, Skype is effectively open sourcing a majority of the application.

Remember that Skype is based on Qt, which means the UI code isn't JUST GUI, its everything that deals with the machine itself. I can't wait until it's released. I just hope the library is made available with multiple arches. It shouldn't be too difficult, since the real hard part of the code to bring it to 64-bit or other arches wouldn't be a part of the protocol library.

@berkus when can we expect the code to be released?
And thanks for all your hard work!

AFAIK, Skype doesn't even own its P2P source code. How can Skype make it an open-source something that it doesn't have, let alone own it.

AFAIC, this open-source GUI is nothing but a good start. Having no open-source on its P2P architecture is like driving a Ferrari without its engine.

That is awsome news. So it could happend that the Skype UI also would support SIP accounts so one could use skype for all your VOIP needs if SIP or Skype in the same app. SIP support would also give skype a use for Distros and users wich will have a problem with shipping/using a librar once its open sourced.

Well it woudl be Sweeet

IMHO, the news is great as it is. Skype won't be fully free (libre) and open source, but at least if the UI (which i hope just not the GUI) is open for public, there will be a lot of issues solved. For instance, i stopped buying Skype credit after i migrated from Fedora to Ubuntu due to audio problem which doesn't allow me to call landline and gsm phones anymore. But if this issue (as anv example) is solved by canonical or other Ubuntu developers who have the skype UI source, i can start buying skype credit instead of paying more for my gsm/3g network. I mean, that's the business model for skype, right? free (gratis) software with some paid service.

i don't really mind if Skype keeps the core communication protocol in a closed library since i'm using x86 (sorry, i know that sounds selfish to non-x86 users - i apologoze for that), so a closed-library for linux 2.6 kernel is good enough for people like me.

Yes, i agree that the best thing would be Skype that is fully FOSS, but one step forward into open source is better than not stepping at all...

~Can't wait to make Skype call from my Pidgin~

Excellent news! I've been using Skype for a couple of years now, but support for Linux was way behind Windows support. We were stuck at version 2.0, with no new version in sight.
I don't think Linux users mind the protocol stays closed source, as long as the ui gets better integration into their operating system.
I have been happy using 2.0 on Ubuntu with no problems at all, but I lost some features compared to when I was a Windows user. For example I used Skype with Pamfax to send faxes back then, and sending faxes is a must when you're in a business environment.

What a great move and it is a pity there are so many negative comments about it.

I use linux because it fits my needs the best. Obviously there are huge advantages to open source, adaptability, flexability, integration... etc.

But by opening the UI and having some proprietory libs, I think that Skype is moving in a great direction and it is a good business model for other software companies wanting to support linux but wanting to make it commercially viable for them to do so. This method allows good integration but allows the skype to still profit from the solution ( I don't mean to sound like a skype fanboy

I love linux but it's biggest problem for me is that it is not supported by big software companies. We can all dream of a day where software like Photoshop is opensourced but at the end of the day these software companies need to make money. Opensourcing part of the software to allow better integration might be the best way at the end of the day.

wow! great news! hate to see so many negative comments. i clearly understand what Berkus is up to.
thanks!

Amazing news! Thank you very much to Skype and to Berkus! I understood very well your statements about not fully open-sourcing of skype because of IP reasons. You do your best in the correct direction. Keep up the good work!

New hope for true 64-bits version.

Gee.. Certainly a sharp plan by Skype Corp. Enables them to redirect UI and packaging frustrations onto the community, and thereby maybe increase their handhelds Qt focus. Savvy move too in view of freedesktop.org developments, lest people really begin to resent the additional softphone/chat app.
Surely those here concerned about things while skype-net stays proprietary would be better to freely direct those energies into the open protocol FOSS competition, a la "don't get angry, get even"! Getting Gmail contacts to experiment is definitely going to be more successful and productive than railing at Skype Corp's dev.
Thanks to Berkus & ofaurax et al for this newsflash.
---
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Hello all,

I see how cool is skype. I am an early adopter and like to use this software. But I am also a linux enthousiast and I don't think skype is following a good track on linux now. It is getting late, simply, because skype doesn't seem to have the resource to keep up with the pace of innovation in the linux desktop, because skype is always one step behind about licencing issues.

And sorry to say that, but skype 2.1 is not a good software, it looks as ugly and feature-less as the 2.0 version. I start to be thinking about moving to another solution where I can manage groups, have a pretty UI and open source app for my eye-candy outstanding kubuntu desktop. I would have preferred to keep skype, so much, but there is now way I can go on using this bloated UI (did you try to use the group feature ??? I don'T think even a windows 3.1 app would have such a bad usability !)

Stéphane

@kaya-steff Skype 2.1 does allow you to have groups, sens sms, make video calls. You can switch the look of skype to blend natively with (K)Ubuntu desktop or any other desktop for that matter. There are more features coming in the next release, which is close now.

I understand that groups feature is less usable than it should be, just because we believe that quickfilter is very powerful and actually eliminates the need for groups altogether. I have about 650 contacts and I do not use groups, because quickfilter makes my CL more manageable than any grouping would. And there are tags on contacts, which are also pretty helpful.

I hope it's finished soon. I'm annoyed of a Skype client, that crashes my whole machine.

@pieter_van_eckardt Perhaps reporting it would've helped?

Skype is excellent for calls. It just works - that's how it's always been.

And so far there's not really any other choice. Everyone I know who uses VoIP uses Skype for it, so I can't use another protocol like SIP or H323 because nobody else does, or another client because Skype is so closed. Besides, those other protocols don't work so well over complex firewalls.

Actually getting audio working on Linux, now that's harder - I always have to kill pulseaudio and sometimes reboot to a different kernel to make a Skype call, but that's not really Skype's fault.

However, the single worst part of Skype on Linux for me has been the UI. There's not a lot wrong as a UI - it's quite pretty and mostly usable. But there's two things which I find make it a pain to use:

- Can't look at any chat logs unless you're online!
No internet connection at the moment? Tough, can't look at chat logs at all.
Trying to remember who you chatted with when you're on the road? Tough.
Can't even look up when you last placed a call or IM.
Who's idea was this stupid misfeature?

- Separate from every other IM/chat service.
Have to keep a separate window open just for Skype users.
Every other service lives in the same window with integrated contacts,
globally searchable logs, integration with desktop notifications etc.
Skype just has to be "special" and "different".

Although open source protocol would be best (and at some point, it will be reverse engineered), I'm really looking forward to the open sourced UI and separate protocol library.

Because then I can hope to dump the UI completely and use any other of the IM UIs around which is better integrated with every other form of communication.

It's not a bad UI. I think it's pretty and quite nicely done. But it's got some terribly inconvenient design decisions which make it a pain to use. And having no access to chat logs when there's no internet connection, nothing else is that stupid.

When the protocol is in it's own separate library, I look forward to wrapping it up so that it can be just another account type for the better integrated clients which behave in a more useful way.

Follow up to previous comment:

This might be a very smart move from Skype, because it removes a lot of motivation to reverse engineer the protocol. When you can just wrap up a binary blob, there's still idealogical and portability reasons to want to reverse engineer it, but at least you don't _have_ to reverse engineer it to communicate with other people using this protocol through different UIs and headlessly.

@jamie.2147

> - Can't look at any chat logs unless you're online!

This is wrong. You can log in without internet connection. This is especially easy if you have autologin enabled. It just works™

> But it's got some terribly inconvenient design decisions which make it a pain to use.

Like what? Be more specific.

This is great news. I look forward to the day that I can use a terminal-based Skype client if I want/need, or have a single client for all my IMs, or even just try more effectively to fix some font issues I have as the person most able to reproduce them. It's nice to see things opening up more.

As for some of the other commenters here, insisting it must be purely Free Software, it must support every platform ever... correctly (erroneously, see below) terminology... and while doing it, speaking as if they're some kind of appointed representatives of the community... no. To them, I say: You do NOT represent us. For they do not, and I hope you can look past the irritating actions of certain unfortunate members of the community when considering future offerings; they are but a vocal minority, whatever they may think.

Again to the other commenters, I remind you that the ownership of code in terms of copyright belongs to the developers or their employers, and they are under no ethical or legal obligation to give away their work; if they do not, it is at worst as if they never wrote it, and no one is harmed. If they do, it is a gift to the community. They do not owe us or you anything. Get down from your pedestal and stop pretending your "YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME WHAT I WANT NOW" whining is anything other than your own inflated sense of entitlement.

As for those complaining that they must use terminology a certain way... speaking myself as a contributor to FOSS projects... you're wrong. "free software" is regular free; as in beer. "Free Software", proper noun and thus capitalised, is free as in speech/the GPL and an entirely different matter. This is how the *FSF*, the people who *invented the concept of Free Software*, use the words. I have never met someone who would *actually know what they were doing* with some source who used the terminology otherwise. What's more, as under the first point above, you have no right to expect them to use any special terminology when dealing with the "Linux community".

Apologies for the ranting; I look forward to seeing the results of this release.

This is good news for sure.

I've been using skype4pidgin plugin under linux for a good while, and while this gives me a good skype experience from within pidgin, it will be nice with a real skype plugin.
Especially since the current skype API > pidgin integration has some serious battery eating problems: http://code.google.com/p/skype4pidgin/issues/detail?id=29

Anyway, one question that I didn't feel you answered is this

- Will it be possible for linux distros to ship your library/code within their respective package management systems, or at least as some kind of restricted extra (a la Ubuntu)?

I am also curious about a port to ARM. Will the open source client be compilable on ARM processors? Particularly curious if both voice *and* video will work on such a client.

Great News! I'm looking forward to using it!

I don't care whether Skype will be open-source or not. What I do care is that they MUST do something about it. All I want is that this stupid thing works without a day of hard work.

They release Skype versions for Windows every couple of months. Updates? Well... Every week... Plugins for browsers? These seem not to work even with Windows.

I can't believe that a company as huge as Skype, which makes millions with their overpriced Skype credits, can't afford to employ a couple of programmers who can actually make the damn thing work.

We've got a 2.1 beta version. Windows users have a 4.something version, that works flawlessly. Why is that? Is Microsoft paying royalties to Skype to prevent them to do something about us, Linux users? Or maybe the chairman is way too stupid and doesn't read the news. Since Ubuntu came along, the number of Linux users have been increasing a lot and it will keep growing. Not to mention that there are other very popular distros such as SUSE and Mandriva...

But what can we do? We have to agree with this situation, because it's always been like this. All the software companies don't look at Linux users, because they must think we don't have money to use their softwares, 'cause we chose a free Operating System. This happens with games, Skype, Adobe Photoshop, Corel Suite and many other necessary applications.

The hell with them! I will never buy Skype credits, ever again. If Skype is "free" (moneywise), that's what I will do: I'll just use the free bit of it. I rather spend money using my telephone.

Very, very disappointing...

Awesome! I can't wait. This is a huge opportunity for development!

finally...

Please consider also implementing the Share Desktop functionality in the Linux version, that current exists in the Vista and XP versions. The expectation here is that if I am running the Linux version, that I can have a remote Skype user share his Vista or XP desktop with me.

What are you waiting for?

A opensource Skype can bring a lot of benefits!

Just think... Skype on Android, homebrew for Iphone and NDS, a QT/GTK+ client inside Kopete/Pidgin or telepathy lib.

More clients, best deal for skype... im just waiting a NDS homebrew for skype! Because Nintendo did not approve Skype for DS

Just patent skype communication protocol for Skype.com use only and open it! We will be curious!

I think that opensourcing the GUI is great and it will lead to better support for the linux version. I don't think that opensourcing the core networking part of the software is good idea at all. This could turn to be like opening the door to hackers, crackers, spamers and every badass idiot who wants to fill my pc with stupid ads and spam.

berkus,

can you already estimate when the next regular release of Skype for Linux which fixes the pulseaudio related crashes and avatar not being displayed (both on amd64) will be released?

Those two issues are the only remaining that cause trouble in our work environment.

Thanks,

Adrian

@genki-adrian I posted about fixing the avatars on 64 bits in my previous post iirc, and the PA crashes were fixed in recent PA releases. They will be up in the next public Skype version, too.

berkus, thanks for your fast reply. I checked Skype today on my Debian amd64 and it still had issues with my webcam unfortunately. It did detect the cam (Logitech Quickcam 5500, UVC driver), however, it couldn't enable video. Clicking "Test" in the "Video devices" didn't work. Trying the exact same on i386 works like a charm. I hope this will work out soon since we're going to promote Skype for the *whole* university here and most people use Linux here .

Great work though so far, thanks.

Adrian

@genki-adrian You could try one of v4lcompat.so tricks, they are on the forum.

@genki-adrian

I installed debian skype package (--force-all) and replaced provided /usr/bin/skype with the static version. This make video functionality stable on debian amd64

czarnyckm

@minozake

If you're running a 64-bit OS and can't run 32-bit binaries then you are missing out in a BIG way. It's quite simple to have a 32-bit environment that runs seamlessly on a 64-bit OS.

For instance, right now, I'm running a 64-bit firefox which references the regular 32-bit plugin for flash.

If you need an easy way to get started with some default 32-bit libs just install WINE. If you've ever used WINE at all then congrats: you've got a 32-bit environment.

@Berkus

Look, I understand what your ultimate goal with this whole thing is. I'm just saddened that now, somehow "free software" somehow automatically translates into open the whole damned thing up. What some of these people need to realise is that if you don't like the fact that [$insert_software_here] isn't FOSS and they don't like that, then they really need to FOAD and not try to force their beliefs unto you because they are what amounts to, cheap bastards who want something for nothing. Man, I don't know how you can sit there and take all that heat as well have without going completely insane and throwing it all in by now. Good luck to you guys and Do The Right Thing(TM) however you guys see fit.

Oh and btw for all of you guys who say Skype doesn't run on a 64 bit platform...

meskes@Neptune:~$ uname -a
Linux Neptune 2.6.31-14-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Fri Oct 16 14:05:01 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux

My advice to you is to learn how to install the ia32libs and get a life. Either that or learn how to sandbox.

cheers,

Matt

Wow.. really good news.. is very bad not have Versions for 64bits..

Good news! But please make the protocol open source too!

@minozake
I run 64bit Firefox using 64bit flash
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10_64bit.html

czarnyckm,

thanks for the hints with the static version on amd64, will give it a shot.

Adrian