On 07/01/2008, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Interesting post with lots to reply back on...but can you post a better> formatted version :) Hope this flies: ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: 6 Jan 2008 23:30Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULATo: [email protected]
On 06/01/2008, Tim Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Dave Crossland wrote:> > The other really evil thing about the Adobe Flash EULA is that if an> > American agrees to it, they agree not to work on Gnash or similar.>> that's a bit harsh.> ...> I know you have spoken out against it previously, but those legal terms> are pretty ghastly IMHO. I'm an atheist, but I do think that some things people do to eachother warrant the term "evil." This is one of those things :-) > Do you not think that the bbc *should* be putting some effort into gnash> > development? I think the BBC should, yes, since that's the fastest way it willsupport viewing the streaming iPlayer with free software. The BBC has said its committed to doing this, but will do the mostpopular platforms first. Despite the massive punch that free softwarepacks, it is seen as a minority platform and so I don't expect the BBCto work on supporting viewing the streaming iPlayer with free softwareany time soon, sadly. Perhaps the engagement with "exotic devices"communities that Ian Forrester is promoting will alert the BBC to theimpact that supporting free software can have, despite its apparentunpopularity. So, I think if the BBC put active effort into Gnash, like a BBCsoftware engineer spending his "20% time" (supposing engineers at theBBC get that, I'm speculating there) on it, that would be _awesome_and I'd be sure to applaud and congratulate their efforts. When theBBC puts passive effort into Gnash, like inviting Gnash developers tomeet the iPlayer team, that is also outstanding. Still, the BBC's policy on contributing to free software projects isnot totally clear to me; as I understand it, there isn't one. Michael Sparks (the primary author of Kamaelia) started the thread"[backstage] How do things actually become open source at the BBC (wasPlease release Perl on Rails as Free Software)" a while back, thatexplained this from his personal perspective, and for which I'm verygrateful as it as illuminating. Sadly I did not kept that thread goingfor lack of time, but the main point we got to was, On 08/12/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On Saturday 08 December 2007 14:06:37 Dave Crossland wrote:> > I think its important to distinguish between the publication of> > private, internal tools as free software, and the publication as free> > software of software required to view BBC media.>> I think you have to be careful here.> ...> your point is, in my opinion, a good example of something> that directly impacts or should be impacted by section 87 paragraph 4 of the> charter agreement, and why, again in my opinion, "best/common practice"> might be better than policy. Here's what Michael refers to: > Section 87> (4) The Executive Board must keep the BBC's research and> > development activities under review, and must (in particular)> ensure that an > appropriate balance is struck between—> (a) the potential for generating > revenue through commercial> exploitation of its intellectual property, and> > (b) the value that might be delivered to licence fee payers and> the UK > economy by making new developments widely and> openly available. The BBC on occasion publishes software developed wholly internally asfree software, and lists these publications atwww.bbc.co.uk/opensource (which I hope one day might bewww.bbc.co.uk/floss or better, www.bbc.co.uk/softwarefreedom :-) Before Michael's post, it seemed to me that only a couple of things(notably Kamaelia which is awesome!) are published for the same reasonthat Backstage is hobbled with non-commercial restrictions; the BBCcan't ride roughshod over the private market and must carefullyevaluate its market impact. So a website management system like "Perl On Rails" and a researchproject like Kamaelia is going to have little impact, since there arethousands of website management systems and research projects, bothfree and proprietary. Gnash, on the other hand, is going to give Adobe a good kick in theshins; as I explained earlier in this thread, they are making loads ofmoney from banning the Adobe Flash runtime, which they distributewithout a fee, from being used by hardware vendors unless they pay afee (amongst other antisocial nonsense). If the BBC is involved with Gnash directly, it risks damaging "vendorrelations" with Adobe, although given how friendly Adobe engineersI've met at conferences and on the web like Tom Phinney and JohnDowdell are, I wouldn't expect that. Adobe seems to be passivelyfriendly to the free software movement, but is a huge and thus slowmoving organisation (like the BBC.) Still, if Gnash really smacksAdobe in the kisser, their lawyers might lash out at the BBC forhelping Gnash. Adobe lawyers ain't so nice - www.freesklyarov.org And hey, Gnash is going to kick Adobe's shins anyway :-) I do thinkits unlikely that Adobe lawyers would lash out at Auntie, but if thatis a real risk, Gnash has legal structures for accepting funding viaUSA charities like the FSF (and another that's legally structured tobe more favourable for large corporate donors is due shortly I hear)which would be anonymous and would sheild the BBC from such risk. After Michael's post, I figured that the BBC isn't too worried aboutthat kind of thing :-) Reading the charter, I think its main problemwith free software is that "the potential for generating revenuethrough commercial exploitation" is less for free software thanproprietary software. Obviously free software revenue is less forindividual organisations, but it is not zero, and may be higher in theeconomy overall. Wonderfully, the BBC recognises this! That is, that the revenuedifference is offset by "the value that might be delivered to licencefee payers and the UK economy [overall] by making new developments[...] available" as free software. So yes, in my opinion the BBC should support Gnash directly, eitherwith in-house engineer time or by funding the project on a kind offreelance basis or whatever, because the value that will be deliveredto licence fee payers and the UK economy by making streaming iPlayeraccessible with Gnash is huge. And not just iPlayer: The BBC ought to support accessing BBC mediawith free software in all cases because it ought to respect and valuethe freedom of license fee payers. However, if the BBC doesn't value freedom much, it might also bepersuaded on secondary practical grounds: The BBC is meant to beserious about supporting innovation; respecting the British public'sfreedom to tinker is the best - cheapest, most efficient - way to doso. --Regards,Dave(Personal opinion only! Not the views of any previous, current orfuture employers or organisations I have, do or will support!) -- Regards,Dave - 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]/
