On 07/12/2007, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stone free
The Jimi Hendrix version.
Smoke free
All flights.
fre
The Tivo version.
It seems the romance languages avoid the pitfall by sensibly having
two words for the two ideas, just like for penguins. So I'm on a
one-man campaign
Noah Slater wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which
Perl On Rails will be non proprietary.
Not really, proprietry is the wrong word to use here. The word free
is much more descriptive. It is perfectly possible
Steve Jolly wrote:
To eliminate confusion, I propose that we in future refer to the FSF
definition of free as GNU/Free. I thank you.
Or you could say 'free software, as defined by the Free Software
Foundation', which is more accurate and doesn't fall into the logical
trap of everything having
At 18:25 +0200 6/12/07, Martin Belam wrote:
The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by
not requiring the use of proprietary software...
Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo
chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of
On 07/12/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Lee wrote:
Steve Jolly wrote:
To eliminate confusion, I propose that we in future refer to the FSF
definition of free as GNU/Free. I thank you.
Or you could say 'free software, as defined by the Free Software
Foundation',
Stone free
The Jimi Hendrix version.
Smoke free
All flights.
fre
The Tivo version.
It seems the romance languages avoid the pitfall by sensibly having
two words for the two ideas, just like for penguins. So I'm on a
one-man campaign to import 'libre' into English.
Sean
-
Sent via the
Matt Lee wrote:
Steve Jolly wrote:
To eliminate confusion, I propose that we in future refer to the FSF
definition of free as GNU/Free. I thank you.
Or you could say 'free software, as defined by the Free Software
Foundation', which is more accurate and doesn't fall into the logical
trap of
On 06/12/2007, Rhys Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People sometimes say that a particular TV programme makes the year's
license fee worth paying. For me, being able to use code developed by
the BBC does just that. Which reminds me about that excellent inhouse
term extractor you seem to have -
Wow! I leave it for a night, and the debate rages on. I not going to write
an essay on the subject, so I'll try and address the important points as I
see them, in a concise a manner as possible.
First, Michael I can confirm that I am in fact a male (it's generally a male
name, though you will
vijay chopra wrote:
To the person who said GPLv3 is more idealistic: having reflected on it
over night, I've realised that my position is in fact more idealistic
than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more
idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive.
I
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noah, you're taking my use of the word speech to literally; replace all
instances of the word speech with expression
Expression is fine, people should have freedom of expression.
I apply the same principles to my code. Take an example other
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I believe (as you seemed to agree)
that code is an art form
I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to
making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork,
but artworks themselves do
On 06/12/2007, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or do we still need positive discrimination?
We need the GPLv3.
--
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.
On 05/12/2007, Matthew Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The delay is just a
small-team-working-on-/programmes-and-trying-to-fit-it-all-in thing.
Any chance of explaining what the BBC actually have to do when someone
says let's open source Y?
It's normally a relatively simple for a small individual
... please more signal; less noise.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 06 December 2007 11:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12
On 06/12/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to
making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork,
but artworks themselves do not function.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
But its
On 06/12/2007, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMH(umble)O:
GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would
rather not
benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share.
You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would
rather
On Thursday 06 December 2007 11:29:53 Dave Crossland wrote:
[ assertion is: code is like art (as well as like speech) ]
I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to
making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork,
but artworks themselves do not
for this
no ?
Please... please more signal; less noise.
Seconded.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 06 December 2007 11:30
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free
On 06/12/2007, Thomas Leitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh my word this is all so tiresome - rehashed, insoluble debate points
surrounded in prose which is itself quite retentively picked apart to
needlessly point score - in a discussion I'm sure 90% of the list would
prefer not to be cluttering
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes they do, users have the choice to take the original source, compile it
and then run it if they want. In my world, developers and users have
identical freedoms.
Yes they do, but what if a vendor takes the source, adds loads of
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by
Why would you want to benefit selfish people?
However, this is your choice, and I'm not going to tell you that
you're wrong - just that I don't understand why.
I do
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On this list, the noise /is/ the signal. You are invited to filter.
He was attempting to apply an ingress filter. Which is significanly
more effective than n x egress filters.
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Sent via the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra
They do, well informed users do anyway; I'm a user of many FOSS
products (both large and small) I regularly submit bug reports and
feature requests
Noah Slater wrote:
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by
Why would you want to benefit selfish people?
To do so would be truly unselfish - to turn the other cheek.
To teach by example in the face of
vijay chopra wrote:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would
rather not
benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share.
You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to,
would
On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain for
users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with.
Sadly the BBC has disdain for users when it goes along with DRM.
--
Regards,
Dave
Personal opinion
On 06/12/2007, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He was attempting to apply an ingress filter. Which is significanly
more effective than n x egress filters.
Asking the whole list to filter it's self to one's own preferences
seems a little selfish, don't ya think? ;)
--
Noah Slater
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used
by
Why would you want to benefit selfish people?
It's called leading by example.
However, this is your choice,
On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, so we're not concerned with our users unless they behave in the
right way and share the same interests and abilities as us.
No, if people wish to use any software (yes, even non-free) they need to
learn how to do it. If they
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He was attempting to apply an ingress filter. Which is significanly
more effective than n x egress filters.
Asking the whole list to filter it's self to one's own preferences
seems a
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because you don't like or because it challenges your beliefs it doesn't
make it FUD, it's a legitimate argument about the nature of freedom and
how it relates to software freedom.
I say it's misleading because your argument seems to
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because you don't like or because it challenges your beliefs it
doesn't
make it FUD, it's a legitimate argument about the nature of freedom
and
how it relates to software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And you are free to carry on misrepresenting my argument.
That is actually the first time you've disagreed with my point.
How am I misrepresenting your argument? I'm genuinely open to
correction. From how I parse your arguments you are saying
also approach one.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 06 December 2007 14:24
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey
On 06/12/2007, Thomas Leitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know if Godwin's first law was that as an online discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one. Then his second law must state that for any Backstage
discussion that grows longer, the
Thomas Leitch wrote:
You know if Godwin's first law was that as an online discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one. Then his second law must state that for any Backstage
discussion that grows longer, the probability that the topics of
On 06/12/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Leitch wrote:
You know if Godwin's first law was that as an online discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one. Then his second law must state that for any Backstage
discussion
The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by
not requiring the use of proprietary software...
Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo
chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money
spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project
m
-
On 06/12/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo
chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money
spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project
Isn't the definition of an echo chamber one where the same opinion is
Martin Belam wrote:
The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by
not requiring the use of proprietary software...
Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo
chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money
spent on the
james - i love ya! - I laughed
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cridland
Sent: Wed 05/12/2007 10:44 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Dec 5, 2007 9:06 PM, Matthew Wood [EMAIL
December 2007 17:48
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Dan,
Please stop posting the same message :)
matt
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01
On 06/12/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by
not requiring the use of proprietary software...
Or by closing the list
The only result of that would be displacement.
Unsolicited user feedback is here to stay :-)
--
Dan,
Please stop posting the same message :)
matt
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 06/12/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by
not requiring the use of proprietary software...
That wouldn't drop the probability to zero.
In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which
Perl On
On 06/12/2007, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which
Perl On Rails will be non proprietary.
Not really, proprietry is the wrong word to use here. The word free
is much more descriptive. It is perfectly possible to have free
On Dec 6, 2007 2:23 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain
for
users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with.
Sadly the BBC has disdain for
On Dec 6, 2007 12:16 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/12/2007, Matthew Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The delay is just a
small-team-working-on-/programmes-and-trying-to-fit-it-all-in thing.
Any chance of explaining what the BBC actually have to do when someone
says let's open
@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 04/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set
out in the charter.
I strongly hope that the BBC will not contribute
On 04/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set out
in the charter.
I strongly hope that the BBC will not contribute to the problem of
license proliferation.
As an aside I still don't understand the need for GPLv3,
On 05/12/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set
out
in the charter.
I strongly hope that the BBC will not contribute to the problem of
license
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 12:22:03 vijay chopra wrote:
Why is license proliferation a problem?
Two words: License incompatibility.
Example: We use the MPL in Dirac Kamaelia (aside from other reasons)
due to the explicit patent grant. If we only used that though, it'd be
incompatible
An alternative is to license under both GPL and LGPL - the BBC has done
this for other projects in the past.
Dor example, for libraries/frameworks that we would want others to embed
into their systems; LGPL allows static linking without requiring the code
it links with to also be released
On 05/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My usual response to this argument is that essentially you are asking
for the freedom to restrict the freedom. This is patently absurd.
Actually I'd compare free speech; it's not free
On 05/12/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see that quote on that page. Please don't misquote us :)
I apologise, it wasn't deliberate; the point however stands, what about
TIVO's
freedom to run the program, for *any* purpose
(emphasis mine)?
They comply with the rules, you
On 05/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Code is just expression, thus it's like any other form of communication; a
way of expressing something, unless you believe in the fallacy of
intellectual property.
See my above argument, you are confusing things terribly.
If you really want
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My usual response to this argument is that essentially you are asking
for the freedom to restrict the freedom. This is patently
vijay chopra wrote:
They comply with the rules, you don't like what they do, so you change
the rules. There's nothing stopping you changing the rules any time you
see a behavior you dislike
Sounds reasonable to me :)
They abided by the rules, not the spirit.
Funnily enough other people do
On 05/12/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, if code is speech, then free code should have the same properties as
free speech - that is someone must be able to take what I write and use it in
a way I find difficult.
if code is speech - it would probably have been called speech
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It makes about as much sense as you saying that I should have the
freedom to say something which would remove YOUR freedom to say
something else.
Would you argue that we don't live in a free society because I am not
allowed to gag you when
mob: +44 (0)7711913293
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Greaves
Sent: 05 December 2007 19:04
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
vijay chopra wrote:
They comply
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free expression is totally different from free action. While I think
you should be allowed to state a racist opionion I do not thinkk you
should be able to take action on it.
Code is just expression, thus it's like any other form of
On 05/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, but I don't see what TIVO did as oppression, I don't particularly like
what they did, but as I said before, software freedom should be the same as
free speech. I don't like what racists like Nick Griffin or Holocaust
deniers like David
On 05/12/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And that agrees with the premise of an /analogy/ of speech - you should think
of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.(paragraph 2)
But the analogy is flawed because the freedoms are different. The
freedom of speech is the freedom to
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you argue that we don't live in a free society because I am not
allowed to gag you when you're saying something I don't like? By your
arguments I should have this freedom.
Your analogy would only hold true if code was an action or
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 20:48:47 Noah Slater wrote:
But the analogy is flawed because the freedoms are different. The
freedom of speech is the freedom to express one's self without
restriction.
If you disagree with the notion that free speech/free software is a bad
analogy, I suggest
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 19:01:18 Noah Slater wrote:
if code is speech - it would probably have been called speech and
not code
...
I totally reject this premise and hence the whole argument falls apart for
me.
No-one's forcing you to agree. I'm saying I find it fascinating - it's the
On 05/12/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll leave it there, since we're actually agreeing on the fact they're
different, but you're shouting at me.
That's the third time you mentioned this. Sorry you think I was
shouting, I only capitalised two words and it was meant to add
On Dec 5, 2007 9:06 PM, Matthew Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all - a quick word from the infamous Perl on Rails team itself
Psst, Matt, nobody's reading these bits. They're too busy arguing about
licences.
Still, better that than nothing. Which reminds me - have we finished adding
that
On 05/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are many people all over the world who **SAY** things I don't like
racists, bigots and extremists of all flavours.
Similarly it's only truly free software when companies like TIVO have the
ability to **DO** with free software anything
On 05/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm arguing that anyone has the right to stop saying I love apples if
they so wish.
No, you're not. I'm not even sure /what/ you're arguing.
When I write some software and license it under the GPL I am giving
you some freedoms you didn't
Ian Forrester wrote:
Can I just say, wow a debate on GPL v3 about a year after everyone else
talked about it? :)
Like good coffee, it's percolating...
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit
On 05/12/2007, Brendan Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We haven't used a custom license for releasing code yet, and I don't see
why we should start now...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/licensing.shtml
Fair enough, in that case for this project the BSD or Apache licenses make
the most sense
vijay chopra wrote:
I've read that page a number of times previously, it doesn't counter any
of my queries or objections to GPLv3. For example, the perceived problem
of tivoisation runs counter to the first freedom the freedom to use
software for any purpose. Do TIVO (or indeed other
On 05/12/2007, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just knew that as soon as I posted that we'd open this up, it would kick
off a discussion about what licence we'd use. How marvellously progressive
of this list to get bogged down in licences... (grin)
Could I just say - thanks. Thanks
On 05/12/2007, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, better that than nothing. Which reminds me - have we finished adding
that DRM to our podcasts?*
ZOMG! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!11
May I suggest you licence your podcasts using...
--
Noah Slater http://bytesexual.org/
Creativity can be
On 5 Dec 2007, at 12:57, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fair enough, in that case for this project the BSD or Apache
licenses make the most sense as to use.
It would be better to take the standard Perl approach and license it
under the same terms as Perl itself, i.e. dual licensed
That's exactly my argument Andy,
As you say, you are free to disagree, but in every society there has to be a
balance of freedoms (even free speech doesn't extend to yelling fire in a
crowded theatre), I think GPLv2 was OK, and something I could just about
live with (despite it's many flaws);
Sorry - ignore this - just seen other posts in this thread that cover this
point far better than I can :-)
Matt
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 14:22:09 -, Matt Hammond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An alternative is to license under both GPL and LGPL - the BBC has done
this for other projects in
On 05/12/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea of the 'tivoisation' clause is to ensure that if you buy a
piece of hardware that runs GPL licensed software, that the source code
made available to you, by the manufacturer can be modified and run on
the hardware.
The issue with
vijay chopra wrote:
Again, like you, IANAL and haven't scrutinized the full text of GPLv3,
but from what I've read it seems to me that it actually limits the users
freedoms by limiting the hardware that it can run on; indeed the
tivoisation clause seems to go against the first of the FSFs
vijay chopra wrote:
What about their freedom to use the software for *any* purpose? (
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
I don't see that quote on that page. Please don't misquote us :)
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
* The freedom to study how the program works,
On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My usual response to this argument is that essentially you are asking
for the freedom to restrict the freedom. This is patently absurd.
Actually I'd compare free speech; it's not free speech unless it difficult
to hear what I'm saying.
On 04/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set out
in the charter.
I'd be surprised at an inhouse license being created, since its not happened
before. Choosing a license to fit charter/business needs/the community
On 04/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IANAL and I haven't properly read the GPLv3 (so I may be talking
bollocks) but I am under the impression that things have been changed
ensure greater protection for the users freedoms. That the licence is
more complex is a testament to the
On 04/12/2007, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delighted to let you know that after discussion with my team, we *will* be
making Perl on Rails (we'll call it something different) open-source.
Awesome!
Thanks James! :-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion
On Dec 3, 2007 12:48 PM, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't need the BBC to release it.
Yeah, a lot of the comments on that blog post said similar things -
that notwithstanding it would be very helpful for the community if the
On 04/12/2007, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delighted to let you know that after discussion with my team, we *will* be
making Perl on Rails (we'll call it something different) open-source.
It'll be licenced as openly as possible. You asked for it, so we'll give you
it.
Wow. Thread
On 04/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I suggest that you licence the code under the GNU Affero GPL v3
please.
I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set out
in the charter.
As an aside I still don't understand the need for GPLv3, as far as I can
On 04/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set out
in the charter.
This makes sense, though is a little disapointing if true.
As an aside I still don't understand the need for GPLv3, as far as I can it
just adds
Hello,
This email is directed at the BBC staffers on the list.
I was excited to read about the Perl on Rails framework you have
developed internally:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2007/11/perl_on_rails.shtml
Unfortunately, the post doesn't make any reference to the possibility
of
Quoting Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello,
This email is directed at the BBC staffers on the list.
I was excited to read about the Perl on Rails framework you have
developed internally:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2007/11/perl_on_rails.shtml
Unfortunately, the post doesn't
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't need the BBC to release it.
Yeah, a lot of the comments on that blog post said similar things -
that notwithstanding it would be very helpful for the community if the
BBC shared the source.
I should imagine that running a site the
On 03/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't need the BBC to release it.
Yeah, a lot of the comments on that blog post said similar things -
that notwithstanding it would be very helpful for the community if the
BBC shared
On 03/12/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
open sourcing code will only take you so far:
I never mentioned Open Source. I ask for them to make it Free Software. :)
Whilst I applaud the technical achievement of the individual
developers, I deplore the situation that has forced them
Quoting Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I should imagine that running a site the size of the BBC could
influence the engineering somewhat in way which would be
useful/interesting to study.
Well this only runs the tiniest part of the BBC site. Like most of the
myriad clever pieces of code at
Quoting Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well this only runs the tiniest part of the BBC site. Like most of the
myriad clever pieces of code at the BBC :-)
Agreed, but it would still be a contribution to the community.
You're right, of
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well this only runs the tiniest part of the BBC site. Like most of the
myriad clever pieces of code at the BBC :-)
Agreed, but it would still be a contribution to the community.
--
Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/
Creativity can be a
On Monday 03 December 2007 10:38:37 Noah Slater wrote:
I was excited to read about the Perl on Rails framework you have
developed internally:
I was pretty pleased to see this mentioned too, though I was rather surprised
to see it mentioned without any comment on whether it'll be released as
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
