Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
Apologies everyone! On 07/01/2008, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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: I'm told that my emails are Base64 encoded and the mailing list is attempting to convert them to another format for some reason. Will it take attachments? Here's the original mail attached. -- Regards, Dave -- Forwarded message -- From: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 6 Jan 2008 23:30 Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk 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 betweenâ > (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 damagi
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
On 07/01/2008, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apologies everyone! And its on the web at http://understandinglimited.com/2008/01/07/bbc-gnash/ -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Coming up for Backstage in 2008, what you may not know....
Hi Guys, So yes I've been meaning to write this post around the time of Christmas but it didn't quite happen. I blame the cheap drink prices in Bristol. -- So as I alluded to in a post about recently, we have set-up a IRC server which will be used for live chats between internal and external developers. We hope to have this running so you can all use it before the end of this Quarter. We're also consider running a Jabber server and Flash communication server, so you can all build prototypes on servers which you may not normally have access to on a basic LAMP stack. We understand that our APIs are getting a little long in the teeth and one of backstage's aims from day one was to be involved in the process of more APIs and data sources. So we build a API Gateway which eases the wheels for API deployment to the outside world in the future. All of these run on the Backstage Wild West Servers and we've seen these being used for many purposes. We are still hoping to take some of your prototypes on-board as they grow. About Ideas and Prototypes submission. The Backstage at bbc.co.uk email address where all the ideas and prototypes go is so full of spam its unreal. This will be solved once we get the new site live because the forms on the current site have become spam bait. Please send all submissions to the list for now. So yes I did once again mention the new site again. Well I'm hoping that we can put the site live for you all to see really soon. Maybe also sometime this Quarter (he says sticking his neck out). There is much more stuff planned for this year including a range of events, more meet ups and even a new way for getting backstage sponsorship of your own events. Take care, now back to getting iplayer on exotic devices. Cheers Ian Forrester - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
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: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk 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 Gnas
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
On 06/01/2008, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So a little secret which can be revealed for 2008 (I meant to do a email > about this and other things over xmas). We have setup a IRC server so we > can have text talks with you guys and us in the future. Its not quite > ready but I'm hoping to start using more things like IRC, Jabber, > Skypecasts, Secondlife, etc to include even more of you no matter where > you are. Nice! :-) IRC ought to have a logbot (http://moritz.faui2k3.org/en/ilbot is a perl one, example at http://irclog.perlgeek.de/perl6/2008-01-06 :-) so the discussions are indexed by search engines and hopefully available via RSS too for lurkers. > This doesn't replace face to face but there would be some value in a > follow up meeting being done over skypecast and face to face, with video > for archiving. Please don't refer to VoIP conference calls as "Skypecasts"; Astertisk is more than capable of doing conference calls - eg http://wiki.eclipse.org/Asterisk_Conference_Calls - and you shouldn't endorse and recommend proprietary and unreliable Skype. -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
Interesting post with lots to reply back on...but can you post a better formatted version :) What you using, Outlook or something ;-) Cheers Ian Dave Crossland wrote: 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 Ad
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
Dave Crossland wrote: On 05/01/2008, Fearghas McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5 Jan 2008, at 17:38, Dave Crossland wrote: I think that's the point of the meeting that Ian invited the public developer community to; I hope you'll go :-) Whilst that meeting may be convenient for London based developers, those of us more than an hour or so away will probably find it harder to just nip in for a meeting. So documentation would be cool - even under a reasonable NDA. Perhaps Ian can use his little video camera to record the meeting and publish it online? If (or rather when) we do have a meeting about all of this, I would want to record the whole thing and make it available online. I could not imagine having it any other way. So a little secret which can be revealed for 2008 (I meant to do a email about this and other things over xmas). We have setup a IRC server so we can have text talks with you guys and us in the future. Its not quite ready but I'm hoping to start using more things like IRC, Jabber, Skypecasts, Secondlife, etc to include even more of you no matter where you are. This doesn't replace face to face but there would be some value in a follow up meeting being done over skypecast and face to face, with video for archiving. About RTMP. As dave points out this is pretty good - http://osflash.org/documentation/rtmp There are many different people and projects working on this problem. I think in a few weeks this issue will be mainly solved. Cheers, Ian - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
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 vi
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All of this is documented in that xboxmediacenter.com forum which Ian posted a link to earlier (in fact the starting post of this thread I think), including an executable PHP script for generating the URL for the RTMP stream. Thanks Phil I was going to say the same :) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
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. Do you not think that the bbc *should* be putting some effort into gnash development? I know you have spoken out against it previously, but those legal terms are pretty ghastly IMHO. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw -- -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
On 06/01/2008, David Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: > > On 06/01/2008, David Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Well it's not that hard to get iPlayer content on the Xbox. Once Linux > >> (e.g. Xebian) is installed then essentially the Xbox is just another > >> Linux x86 machine. Install IceWeasel/Firefox and the Flash plugin and > >> iPlayer works fine. > > > > This would be unethical (since the Adobe flash plugin in not shareable > > or modifiable) and it breaks the Flash EULA section 3.1. > > Unethical in what way? There's a question about whether this complies > with EULA section 3.1 but I would maintain that an Xbox running Linux is > a PC and not a games console especially when all the games-related stuff > has been removed. I wasn't suggesting porting anything to the original > XBox operating system or modifying the plugin in any way, merely > pointing out that it was possible to run iPlayer on the Xbox hardware. Its technically possible, but it breaks the EULA contract, and if this contract is valid, it is illegal. But, it might not be legally binding, and in that case you just break an agreement, which isn't a big deal, but it is slightly unethical to backstab like that. Section 3.1 says: "For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles," The Xbox hardware is sold as a game console and your modification to its software does not change that. Supposing that it does, you now have a computer with its primary display being a television, which makes it a "set top box." Either way, you would agree not to use the Adobe Flash player in this way if you used it, and to break an agreement is obviously not ethical. Using any propriety software is not ethical though, because you give up your own freedom to use, study, share and improve the software. Where this effects other people, it is unethical; mainly, if you cannot share it with a friend, you betray your friends; also, you suggest to them that they ought to give up their freedom, which is a kind of indirect ethical pollution. > Certainly an open source solution that avoids these uncertainties is a > better answer. For sure! Thanks for taking time to discuss this with me, -- Regards, Dave (Personal opinion only!) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
Dave Crossland wrote: On 06/01/2008, David Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well it's not that hard to get iPlayer content on the Xbox. Once Linux (e.g. Xebian) is installed then essentially the Xbox is just another Linux x86 machine. Install IceWeasel/Firefox and the Flash plugin and iPlayer works fine. This would be unethical (since the Adobe flash plugin in not shareable or modifiable) and it breaks the Flash EULA section 3.1. Unethical in what way? There's a question about whether this complies with EULA section 3.1 but I would maintain that an Xbox running Linux is a PC and not a games console especially when all the games-related stuff has been removed. I wasn't suggesting porting anything to the original XBox operating system or modifying the plugin in any way, merely pointing out that it was possible to run iPlayer on the Xbox hardware. Certainly an open source solution that avoids these uncertainties is a better answer. Regards, David. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Identity/trust/reputation project savingtheinternetwithhate.com
Hi, Interesting identity/trust/reputation project you might be interested in: http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/ (From http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/rails_is_a_ghetto.html which I found hilarious and may be of interest to Ruby on Rail developers :-) -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
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. -- Forwarded message -- From: Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 6 Jan 2008 19:45 Subject: Re: [Gnash] Adobe EULA To: Rob Savoye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 12:03:48PM -0700, Rob Savoye wrote: > On 06/01/2008, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/ > > > > I heard that this EULA forbids potential Gnash developers in the USA > > from contributing if they have ever agreed to it. > > > > Could anyone confirm in this is true, and which clause specifically > > has this nasty effect? > > I believe it was #8. The language is something of the "can't write a > flash player if you agree to this" variety. It's 2.5.1, the clause about reverse engineering. "[Information] may not be disclosed to any third party or used to create any software which is substantially similar to the expression of the Software." Do you know what happens when somebody installs the flash player and then uninstalls it? Is that person still unable to contribute to Gnash then? -- Sylvain -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
But I can't find it *anywhere* in the iPlayer HTML or Javascript. Can't find it in the XML either. Is it hidden in the actual flash object itself? I don't remember the details offhand, but these bits of information *are* all available in the pages/html/JavaScript/config files. I am a little wary of hardcoding in an IP. What if the BBC decide they need to switch some machines round and the IP changes? The IP is defined in a config file. All of this is documented in that xboxmediacenter.com forum which Ian posted a link to earlier (in fact the starting post of this thread I think), including an executable PHP script for generating the URL for the RTMP stream. Cheers, Phil Wilson - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
On 06/01/2008, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2008 4:59 PM, Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 04/01/2008, Ian Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So if your building a iplayer for an exotic device platform, do get in > > > touch. > > > > Adobe Flash is prohibited on non-PC systems, is the BBC suggesting we > > violate Adobe's EULA or just not use the streaming version? > > Andy, I'm awfully confused. I believe Andy is referring to the Flash EULA's infamous section 3.1: "3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices." - http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/ > Flash plays on a Wii (albeit not the iPlayer > video content, since the codec used isn't in that version), on mobile phones > (from Nokia to Windoze phones but not the iPhone yet), I think it's also on > the PSP as well. The hardware vendors have paid Adobe large license fees to include a Flash runtime on those devices; you aren't allowed to install a different Adobe Flash runtime if someone like yourself who would like to do so, could technically do it. > (Oh, and naturally it's available on the Mac and Linux). Only sometimes. You ought to read the legally binding contract for the software you choose to install. If you are running GNU+Linux on anything unlike a normal desktop PC - Xebian on an Xbox, or a eeePC hand held - or if you have a "tablet PC" and you are not running Windows XP Tablet Edition, you are breaking that legally binding contract. In any case, you ought to never install it anyway, because you can't share copies with friends and you have to give up your freedom to have someone improve it. > > Apart form the BBCs "we hate people knowing how this works" attitude I > > see no reason why it can't be done. > > Although others have also said this: this list (and this thread in > particular) is precisely because we -do- want people knowing how as much of > this works as possible: the Backstage team battle through some quite > difficult beaurocracy to enable this to happen. And they ought to be congratulated at every opportunity for doing great work! :-) > I admire your negativity towards everything posted here, but do cut us some > slack: we're trying to help as much as we can. If you want to bash the BBC, > please do just drop me an email and let's keep that stuff off-list. Bashing the BBC without merit is senseless, but where the BBC acts poorly, it ought to be criticised - just like anyone else. -- Regards, Dave (Personal opinion only, not the views of any employers past or present.) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
On 06/01/2008, David Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well it's not that hard to get iPlayer content on the Xbox. Once Linux > (e.g. Xebian) is installed then essentially the Xbox is just another > Linux x86 machine. Install IceWeasel/Firefox and the Flash plugin and > iPlayer works fine. This would be unethical (since the Adobe flash plugin in not shareable or modifiable) and it breaks the Flash EULA section 3.1. > OK, maybe getting Linux on it in the first place isn't that simple I dunno, given the preinstalled OS can be evaded through pure software, I'm surprised that there isn't a GNU+Linux installation CD ISO floating around that you just pop in the Xbox drive and away you go :-) > but I happened to have an old Xbox that I had tried > out as a Myth frontend so testing this out didn't take much additional work. > > What would be interesting would be to have a Myth plugin that would > display iPlayer content. It's already been done by firing up Firefox > from within Myth but if gnash can be made to work with iPlayer then it > ought to be possible to produce a fully open source plugin. When Gnash is really cookin', I expect it will be a standard Myth plugin :-) -- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
On 06/01/2008, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd love to get an iPlayer activity working on the OLPC XO. Indeed - mine is arriving this week :-) Shame about the GeoIP restriction, eh? -- Regards, Dave (Personal opinion) - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 16:39 +, Andy wrote: > Any links to the specification for RTMP all the usual places I find > protocol specs have turned up no results. http://wiki.gnashdev.org/wiki/index.php/RTMP http://osflash.org/documentation/rtmp See also http://osdir.com/ml/gnu.gnash.devel2/2006-11/msg00278.html I'd love to get an iPlayer activity working on the OLPC XO. -- dwmw2 - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iplayer on exotic devices
Dave Crossland wrote: On 04/01/2008, Duncan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 04/01/2008, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: On 04/01/2008, Barry Carlyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: iPlayer on the Normal Xbox would be interesting... Yes, the original Xbox, not the Xbox360. Well it's not that hard to get iPlayer content on the Xbox. Once Linux (e.g. Xebian) is installed then essentially the Xbox is just another Linux x86 machine. Install IceWeasel/Firefox and the Flash plugin and iPlayer works fine. OK, maybe getting Linux on it in the first place isn't that simple but I happened to have an old Xbox that I had tried out as a Myth frontend so testing this out didn't take much additional work. What would be interesting would be to have a Myth plugin that would display iPlayer content. It's already been done by firing up Firefox from within Myth but if gnash can be made to work with iPlayer then it ought to be possible to produce a fully open source plugin. David. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
