On 15/06/07, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You really are a fucking twat, aren't you?
Rich.
Resorting to personal insults because you can't win an argument?
What is so wrong with suggesting you publish said agreements?
If they are published and I missed it, then I am sorry but you could
be a tad more helpful and point to them instead of sending abusive
emails.
Or are the agreements/contracts protected by an NDA, or trade secret etc.?
The list of OSes/Chips was never meant to be complete, it is just a
list of platforms.
To be "neutral" on platform the BBC's iPlayer will need to run on
every platform that has existed, that does exist, or will exist in the
future. It's not "neutral" if you select 3 software platforms and
implement it on them because you have other platforms which don't have
it.
Websters dictionary define neutral as meaning:
1. Not engaged on either side; not taking part with or
assisting either of two or more contending parties;
neuter; indifferent.
Wikipedia defines platform (in the computing context) to mean:
In computing, a platform describes some sort of framework, either in
hardware or software, which allows software to run. Typical platforms include
a computer's architecture, operating system, or programming languages
and their runtime libraries.
Wordnet defines platform to mean:
3: the combination of a particular computer and a particular
operating system
(the other definitions weren't relevant due to context).
Even by implementing iPlayer on Windows, Mac and Linux you are
"assisting" those parties and not assisting contending parties such as
BSD, or any other OS that exists or could exist.
So given those definitions of "neutral" and "platform" how can
implementing it on a subset of platforms ever be platform neutral. And
even if it is implemented on all platforms it may not be neutral as it
assists existing platforms over ones that have not been created yet.
If you have any suggestions about how to achieve platform neutrality I
would actually be genuinely interested in hearing them (provide you
can manage to do that without resorting to personal insults).
Right now I can only think of an Open Source reference implementation,
or a publicly defined specification. If anyone else knows of a way to
achieve platform neutrality speak up!
Your new law, do you want it to be "Lockwood's Law" or "Richard's
Law"? I think "Lockwoods law" sound better, but you invented the law
so you get naming privileges.
I concede now the BBC has no choice at this time but to use a DRM
scheme, I just disagree with _which_ scheme, and it _appears_ the BBC
Trust agrees with me.
@Mike:
Prove axiom 2. You are also failing to take into account the
possibility of using a custom or adapted DRM implementation, it
shouldn't cost too much compared with the 4.5 million that the BBC
have spent so far.
Ian Worte:
Name another DRM system which is technically capable of the same things,
and exists today.
The BBC iPlayer didn't exist when the BBC started the project, why
does the DRM need to have existed at that time as well?
I will continue looking for such a DRM scheme. Or I could try and
stall this for long enough to give me time to create my own DRM scheme
and point to that (but that may be cheating?)
I am downloading a cross platform DRM system as we speak, the source
is rather large though. I think it's bringing all the crypto libraries
and media libraries with it.
More news on that if it does do time restrictions. can't be sure though.
Andy
--
SELECT * FROM remarks WHERE witty=1 LIMIT 1
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
