Hi, Thought this might be of interest to the Gnash community :-)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 6 Jan 2008 23:30 Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA To: [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 each other 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 will support viewing the streaming iPlayer with free software. The BBC has said its committed to doing this, but will do the most popular platforms first. Despite the massive punch that free software packs, it is seen as a minority platform and so I don't expect the BBC to work on supporting viewing the streaming iPlayer with free software any time soon, sadly. Perhaps the engagement with "exotic devices" communities that Ian Forrester is promoting will alert the BBC to the impact that supporting free software can have, despite its apparent unpopularity. So, I think if the BBC put active effort into Gnash, like a BBC software engineer spending his "20% time" (supposing engineers at the BBC get that, I'm speculating there) on it, that would be _awesome_ and I'd be sure to applaud and congratulate their efforts. When the BBC puts passive effort into Gnash, like inviting Gnash developers to meet the iPlayer team, that is also outstanding. Still, the BBC's policy on contributing to free software projects is not 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 (was Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software)" a while back, that explained this from his personal perspective, and for which I'm very grateful as it as illuminating. Sadly I did not kept that thread going for 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 as free software, and lists these publications at www.bbc.co.uk/opensource (which I hope one day might be www.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 reason that Backstage is hobbled with non-commercial restrictions; the BBC can't ride roughshod over the private market and must carefully evaluate its market impact. So a website management system like "Perl On Rails" and a research project like Kamaelia is going to have little impact, since there are thousands of website management systems and research projects, both free and proprietary. Gnash, on the other hand, is going to give Adobe a good kick in the shins; as I explained earlier in this thread, they are making loads of money from banning the Adobe Flash runtime, which they distribute without a fee, from being used by hardware vendors unless they pay a fee (amongst other antisocial nonsense). If the BBC is involved with Gnash directly, it risks damaging "vendor relations" with Adobe, although given how friendly Adobe engineers I've met at conferences and on the web like Tom Phinney and John Dowdell are, I wouldn't expect that. Adobe seems to be passively friendly to the free software movement, but is a huge and thus slow moving organisation (like the BBC.) Still, if Gnash really smacks Adobe in the kisser, their lawyers might lash out at the BBC for helping Gnash. Adobe lawyers ain't so nice - www.freesklyarov.org And hey, Gnash is going to kick Adobe's shins anyway :-) I do think its unlikely that Adobe lawyers would lash out at Auntie, but if that is a real risk, Gnash has legal structures for accepting funding via USA charities like the FSF (and another that's legally structured to be 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 about that kind of thing :-) Reading the charter, I think its main problem with free software is that "the potential for generating revenue through commercial exploitation" is less for free software than proprietary software. Obviously free software revenue is less for individual organisations, but it is not zero, and may be higher in the economy overall. Wonderfully, the BBC recognises this! That is, that the revenue difference is offset by "the value that might be delivered to licence fee 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, either with in-house engineer time or by funding the project on a kind of freelance basis or whatever, because the value that will be delivered to licence fee payers and the UK economy by making streaming iPlayer accessible with Gnash is huge. And not just iPlayer: The BBC ought to support accessing BBC media with free software in all cases because it ought to respect and value the freedom of license fee payers. However, if the BBC doesn't value freedom much, it might also be persuaded on secondary practical grounds: The BBC is meant to be serious about supporting innovation; respecting the British public's freedom to tinker is the best - cheapest, most efficient - way to do so. -- Regards, Dave (Personal opinion only! Not the views of any previous, current or future employers or organisations I have, do or will support!) -- Regards, Dave
_______________________________________________ Gnash mailing list Gnash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash
