On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 18:06 +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > Alex Hudson wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 17:54 +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > >>> I think there's actually three things at play here: > >>> > >>> 1. whether or not the player is free software; > >>> 2. whether or not the video codecs are free software; > >>> 3. whether or not the BBC use DRM. > >>> > >>> At the moment, 1, 2, & 3 are all 'not'. 1 is pretty trivial imho, and > >>> not really worth worrying about. > >> 1 would obviate 2 and 3... > > > > In what way? Modern player software has virtually nothing to do with the > > actual data consumed. Likewise, if the data has a free codec, who cares > > if the BBC player is proprietary, since it's then easily replaceable. > > Yes you're right. I misunderstood the relationship between the freedom > of the codec and the freedom of the player wrapper. I was reading > "player" as "entire stack" rather than just "front end". My apologies.
We need to focus campaigning on free and open protocols, free and open data formats and free and open codecs. If that battle is won free software can and will thrive and although not easy, its a lot easier battle to win politically than requiring people to take up free software. Ian -- New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications www.theINGOTs.org You have received this email from the following company: The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
