I think if anyone was having difficulty understanding exactly what the difference is between free software and non-free software, then this posting about how Microsoft plan to make their branded startup sound mandatory on Windows Vista illustrates exactly what the deal is.

It might seem like a small innocuous change and to be honest it won't have much of an impact on the way in which people use their computer, but it perfectly illustrates the attitude of companies like this towards who actually has the right to control what your computer does and how it does it. The momentum gathering behind so-called Trusted Computing shows us that these companies don't trust us to use our own machines for what they see as the right purposes. Can they really not trust us to choose the right start-up sound either? Or is that just not the point?

Well many people do actually want to personalise their own computer, even if it allows (God forbid) people to do things like this, which is incidentally really quite funny.

Ridiculous actions like this on the part of Microsoft and the invasive behaviour of software like Windows Media Player and Real Player are extending the already long list of why I am seriously considering giving up any proprietry software for good. If I do so, I think I shall also become a fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe, following a quite informative talk at my local Linux User Group by Shane Coughlan, already a fellow.

Have any comments on this? I'd be interested to see what people think.

So, I'm an advocate of Free Software, that much is known. But if I were to make a real shift in my usage of software and effectively stop using proprietry stuff, would I have to make sacrifices too?

One immediate thing which with just a little experience of using a system such as GNU/Linux anyone must realise is that multimedia stuff can be a bit of a pain. Many newbies attribute this to Linux's bad support for multimedia. "Linux just isn't as up to date as Windows for playing MP3's and DVD's" they say. Linux is apparently "not ready for the desktop", to quote an oft-used phrase.

Well this week, I decided to do a little delving to find out exactly why MP3's and the like are often not supported on Linux out-of-the-box and surprise surprise, it's nothing to do with technology, but licencing and proprietry restrictions.

The MP3 codec is a fancy bit of maths that basically compresses digital information. It is structured so as to be particularly suitable for audio signals. Part of this maths is patented. Actually, a fair amount of it is, and there are a number of companies which collectively issue licences.

My first reaction to this information was to wonder how this was enforcable, since (in the EU at least) software as such is not patentable. Always remember the "as such"! This doesn't stop the European Patent Office from issuing patents for software however, and quite a few have been. Apparently, the patentability only comes into question if the patent is challenged.

To make things slightly more complicated, the technology isn't licenced to end-users, only companies who make money out of it. This means that you don't have to hold a licence to encode or decode your own MP3's, but if you use software that you bought to do it for you, then the software company probably did. In fact, free (gratis, as in beer) code to encode and decode MP3's is provided by the patent holders, under the condition that it's only used for personal non-commercial activity.

In a world where everything is as black and white as some of these companies would like it to be, where companies produce things and consumers consume them, this model works perfectly. People can have MP3 libraries of their music (depending on the fair use law where they live) and companies can licence the technology to sell to consumers.

However, the world isn't quite like that, and Free Software is a case in point. FFMpeg, for example is an MP3 library released under the Lesser GNU Public Licence. It's important to understand the difference between patents and copyright in a case like this. The patent holders licence the MP3 technology from the patent they hold for use in systems, but it's perfectly possible to come up with a novel way of implementing the technology. This is what FFMpeg does and therefore their novel code can be licenced under the LGPL. Does FFMPeg breach the terms of the patent? Well, so long as we only use it for personal, non-commercial activities, then that's fine.

But, the LGPL requires that the software licenced under it must be able to be used for any purpose. So can I get FFMpeg and use it for my commercial activity? The LGPL says I can, and that's how I received the technology. This may, in fact be what is happening to SanDisk at the moment. Their stall at a trade fair in Germany was raided last week and all their MP3 players taken away following a court ruling in Italy.

I don't want to get too deep into the legal details here (mainly because I am not a lawyer), but it's easy to see why most Linux distributions don't ship with MP3 technology. MP3 code which is licenced in such a way that permits you to do anything with it, but subject to a patent which doesn't, is what's known as a "grey area".

Who is at fault here then? Is it the patent holder for allowing the stuff to be licenced under the LGPL in the first place, or the developer for releasing it in such a way that it permitted usage forbidden by the patent? Like I say, I'm not a lawyer...

So, the next relevant question is, if I'm to stick with Free Software wherever possible, do I use MP3? The answer has to be as close to no as possible, since the patent places severe restrictions on the technology's usage, which are not compatible with GNU licences. However, practically speaking this does mean that I can't listen to any of my MP3's. I could re-rip the CD's to Ogg/Vorbis files of course (which ahem, I may not be allowed to do in the UK anyway), but that will take a lot of time. Also, DVD's are very often encoded using MPEG codecs, so can I not watch them? (Don't even get me started on the CSS debate)

At this point, I really want to scream, since I don't have the time to research exactly under which conditions I am allowed to use various MPEG standard codecs, let alone even find out who owns them. Is it really this hard in a world where you don't rely on Microsoft or Apple to manage your computer for you? It shouldn't be...

So, for want of a decision and nice article summary, all I can end with is a plea for the wider adoption of open file formats. We're making some progress with office applications, let's give Ogg/Vorbis/Theora a boost too.

Phew, the report is finished! Today was the deadline for my MSc report to be submitted and it was duly handed in well before the 12 noon deadline.

Annoyingly, I'm apparently also required to include a CD full of all my data and an electronic copy of the report too, but thanks to the wonders of employing poor quality self-important admin staff, I wasn't aware of this fact until just before noon. Also, thanks to the rather naff computer set-up in the School of Computer Science at Birmingham, I wasn't able to produce it without returning home.

So, the CD will be handed in tomorrow. That's fine with the "helpful" admin staff (and so I'm assuming tutors) and it's just a small job to be honest.

But, it does mean that any mood of elation I was anticipating due to my having completed all my work has been delayed and somewhat muddied until tomorrow. Oh well. Anyway, here's the report in all it's glory, and just in case anyone wants to read more than the front cover, the full thing can be downloaded here.

Having my MSc project firmly behind me, I headed off to the US on Tuesday for the final time for quite a while. I've been over here several times in the last year to visit my girlfriend, Marla.

The seven and a half hour flight from England to the Eastern US has always been slightly more comfortable since I've started flying with Virgin Atlantic rather than American Airlines, in a large part due to the fantastic on-demand entertainment system they have on board. There is a huge selection of stuff to watch and listen to - so much so that I had not until this trip gone through everything the system had to offer. To my surprise, I discovered that Virgin are now offering a full-length audio reading of the Holy Qu'ran.

Of course, there's no reason at all for this not to join the several episodes of The Simpsons, The Office and various Hollywood blockbusters on offer, but it did feel slightly weird flying to Washington, DC on the day after the 5th anniversary of 9/11, listening to hypnotic incantations of Islamic scripture. Each to their own, I suppose.

People talk a lot about the rise of Islamaphobia in the wake of the various attacks and attempted attacks on the West by Islamic fundamentalists in recent years. I have observed some of this on a number of occasions, including having seen a group of white men shouting quite disgusting abuse at a young Muslim woman walking home from univerisy. There is no excuse for this kind of behaviour.

However, how many people can honestly say that a certain thought wouldn't cross their mind when they meet a young single Muslim man with no luggage and poor English, boarding a plane to Washington, DC, having just flown in from Islamabad? Abdulqajji (please forgive me if I can't remember how to spell your name) befriended me in the check-in queue in Terminal 3 at Heathrow, as he wanted my help in knowing what to say to to the staff at the check-in desk about his hand luggage. I feel that I owe him and many others an apology for the thoughts that crossed my mind before and during that flight. I hate prejudice, but discovered this week that even despite the best of intentions, only a better man that I is incapable of it.

I've walked past this pretty much every day for the last year. Though it looks like the people inside are waiting for a bus, this is in fact a smoking shelter at the local hospital.

I'm sure that smoking in a confined space such as this can't be the best thing for your health, but more importantly, why on earth is the NHS (and our taxes) paying for shiny new shelters to house its staff who choose to smoke?

I've heard it said that smoking actually helps the NHS financially, since the revenue raised from the sale of cigarettes is greater than the cost involved in treating smoking-related illness, but surely providing this shelter is taking it too far.

Furthermore, if despite its role as a health educator the NHS were to take a relaxed attitude to smoking, what I find most baffling about this is that it obviously takes a much more serious approach to the risk of getting wet. Do these shelters serve any purpose other than to prevent smokers from returning to work with wet hair? Perhaps the shelter serves as a communal space, which keeps the smokers away from the main entrance of the hospial where patients would have to learn that the doctor who'd just advised them to quit does himself smoke.

My walk to university takes me through the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, by all accounts a huge complex, bustling with people. I couldn't help but notice on these trips that the number of smokers with whom I share this route make up a significantly larger proportion of people than I have observed in the world at large (except perhaps in Quebec, but that's another story). The hospital really does seem to be inundated with smokers, staff and patients alike. Am I the only one who sees this as a little odd?

I think for all its failings, the NHS is a wonderful thing. Anyone can turn up at a doctor's or a hopital and receive treatment regardless of who they are or their financial circumstances. This is certainly an advantage when compared to the overcomplicated, expensive and socially divisive system which my girlfriend has to contend with in the United States.

But despite the open access approach we practice here in the UK, why do we insist on treating people for conditions which have been caused by wilfull damage of their own health? Surely that's taking the biscuit? We are a caring society, which takes responsibility for the healing of others, but doesn't the arrangement have to require a certain amount of intention from the individual too?

In a private healthcare system, this really doesn't matter. Since you pay a market rate to be treated, who cares what state your body's in? The hospital gets its money, you do what you like to yourself and then pay if you need more treatment - as long as you are able. I'm sure that the NHS shouldn't give this "luxury". The rationing which has always taken place in the NHS can often seem arbitrary, but isn't it time that it's tied to some sort of partnership arrangement?

This does sit awkwardly, though. What about the kayaker who breaks his arm, or even a guy who crosses a road and gets hit by a car? Surely these are also unneccessary risks.

So, perhaps the NHS can't impose these kinds of rations without there being a judgment about "accepted lifestyles", which takes us down a nasty road. But, by having the NHS in the first place - or indeed any community-wide agreed service - haven't we already done so?

In the meantime, the smokers can be hidden away from the main entrance in their shelter - probably a decision which made some middle manager quite chuffed with the coup. But the hospital can't ignore the fact that the message they're sending out loud and clear is "Smoke? Sure... but whatever you do, don't get wet!"