RE: [backstage] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
Yeah, and I *love* the way that the jv is kicking the foss community in the teeth over tc... The least they could do is give something back! Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they got to make the source code available? I've already been on the phone to them about possibly opening the stack so homebrew kit could receive and make use of the environment... The foss community could even help. This bit? All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on YouView.com and YouView Content belong to YouView and/or YouViews licensors. Please respect copyright. If they intend for that to cover the entirety of FOSS contribs, that's particularly cold. Not a fan of what's being done there at all. What I dislike almost as much is this revelation in that previously linked article: The seven partners in the project have each committed to contribute £4.5 million per year over the next four years to fund the platform, much of which will be spent on marketing. It doesn't need marketing to death, it needs a rock solid, intelligently designed and truly innovative UI and 'experience' (getting floaty now) to make it stand out from the noise. This project needs to excel and I fear it won't if much of the funding from the various parties ends up being spent on bus adverts and stupid Flash banners. They need to put their money in, leave it to experts to come up with the innovations and then let it simmer instead of hawk it and each want a piece of the pie (to the inevitable detriment of the entire project). Also WeView was a poor choice of name don't ye think? From a syllabic approach (sorry, I'm a linguist), TV is just about universal. SeeSaw wasn't great but still has some cross-linguistic compatibility. We and View can be quite complex syllables to pronounce if you don't speak much English and it evokes existing brands too much (Wii, Freeview etc). WeV just sounds stupid if you use the abbreviated form. (Would it become 'watching the Welly'?) Everybody's just going to call it on demand anyway, if they don't stick with Canvas... I quite like Canvas, particularly the concepts it evokes (plus it's a good name to 'say')
Re: [backstage] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 13:49, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote: Um, it's not weview, it's YouView, (though no, I'm no fan of the name or the branding) and copyright for content of a website is usually vested in the website owner- I'd doubt you'd find much different on most commercial company web sites, and YouView is a commercial joint venture (albeit with a PSB partner). Your points regarding the marketing spend are open to debate, butif this is going to be a success and bring IP TV to most UK livingrooms then yeah, it will need selling. A good idea won't sell itself. Should also be noted that the bits of the tech that Canvas is doing aren't particularly expensive develop -- bulk of it is staffing costs over a not especially long period, and it's drawing on BBC RD's work in this area in any case. The bulk of Canvas's budget being a marketing budget is pretty much what it _should_ be, other issues with the proposition notwithstanding. M. - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
Um, it's not weview, it's YouView, (though no, I'm no fan of the name or the branding) and copyright for content of a website is usually vested in the website owner- I'd doubt you'd find much different on most commercial company web sites, and YouView is a commercial joint venture (albeit with a PSB partner). Your points regarding the marketing spend are open to debate, butif this is going to be a success and bring IP TV to most UK livingrooms then yeah, it will need selling. A good idea won't sell itself. a On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Woods chris...@infinitus.co.uk wrote: Yeah, and I *love* the way that the jv is kicking the foss community in the teeth over tc... The least they could do is give something back! Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they got to make the source code available? I've already been on the phone to them about possibly opening the stack so homebrew kit could receive and make use of the environment... The foss community could even help. This bit? All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on YouView.com and YouView Content belong to YouView and/or YouView’s licensors. Please respect copyright. If they intend for that to cover the entirety of FOSS contribs, that's particularly cold. Not a fan of what's being done there at all. What I dislike almost as much is this revelation in that previously linked article: The seven partners in the project have each committed to contribute £4.5 million per year over the next four years to fund the platform, much of which will be spent on marketing. It doesn't need marketing to death, it needs a rock solid, intelligently designed and truly innovative UI and 'experience' (getting floaty now) to make it stand out from the noise. This project needs to excel and I fear it won't if much of the funding from the various parties ends up being spent on bus adverts and stupid Flash banners. They need to put their money in, leave it to experts to come up with the innovations and then let it simmer instead of hawk it and each want a piece of the pie (to the inevitable detriment of the entire project). Also WeView was a poor choice of name don't ye think? From a syllabic approach (sorry, I'm a linguist), TV is just about universal. SeeSaw wasn't great but still has some cross-linguistic compatibility. We and View can be quite complex syllables to pronounce if you don't speak much English and it evokes existing brands too much (Wii, Freeview etc). WeV just sounds stupid if you use the abbreviated form. (Would it become 'watching the Welly'?) Everybody's just going to call it on demand anyway, if they don't stick with Canvas... I quite like Canvas, particularly the concepts it evokes (plus it's a good name to 'say') -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com
Re: [backstage] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
Ah, I stand corrected (or clarrified)- the JV is Not For Profit. Not a charrity though. And they will have paid someone to make content for their website so (for instance) we needn't expect images of DR Who used to be considered fully rights free. a On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote: Um, it's not weview, it's YouView, (though no, I'm no fan of the name or the branding) and copyright for content of a website is usually vested in the website owner- I'd doubt you'd find much different on most commercial company web sites, and YouView is a commercial joint venture (albeit with a PSB partner). Your points regarding the marketing spend are open to debate, butif this is going to be a success and bring IP TV to most UK livingrooms then yeah, it will need selling. A good idea won't sell itself. a On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Woods chris...@infinitus.co.uk wrote: Yeah, and I *love* the way that the jv is kicking the foss community in the teeth over tc... The least they could do is give something back! Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they got to make the source code available? I've already been on the phone to them about possibly opening the stack so homebrew kit could receive and make use of the environment... The foss community could even help. This bit? All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on YouView.com and YouView Content belong to YouView and/or YouView’s licensors. Please respect copyright. If they intend for that to cover the entirety of FOSS contribs, that's particularly cold. Not a fan of what's being done there at all. What I dislike almost as much is this revelation in that previously linked article: The seven partners in the project have each committed to contribute £4.5 million per year over the next four years to fund the platform, much of which will be spent on marketing. It doesn't need marketing to death, it needs a rock solid, intelligently designed and truly innovative UI and 'experience' (getting floaty now) to make it stand out from the noise. This project needs to excel and I fear it won't if much of the funding from the various parties ends up being spent on bus adverts and stupid Flash banners. They need to put their money in, leave it to experts to come up with the innovations and then let it simmer instead of hawk it and each want a piece of the pie (to the inevitable detriment of the entire project). Also WeView was a poor choice of name don't ye think? From a syllabic approach (sorry, I'm a linguist), TV is just about universal. SeeSaw wasn't great but still has some cross-linguistic compatibility. We and View can be quite complex syllables to pronounce if you don't speak much English and it evokes existing brands too much (Wii, Freeview etc). WeV just sounds stupid if you use the abbreviated form. (Would it become 'watching the Welly'?) Everybody's just going to call it on demand anyway, if they don't stick with Canvas... I quite like Canvas, particularly the concepts it evokes (plus it's a good name to 'say') -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com
RE: [backstage] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
It's more the you will not attempt to reverse-engineer, decompile... Etc etc bit. When the guts are all FOSS - Original message - Yeah, and I *love* the way that the jv is kicking the foss community in the teeth over tc... The least they could do is give something back! Actually, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they got to make the source code available? I've already been on the phone to them about possibly opening the stack so homebrew kit could receive and make use of the environment... The foss community could even help. This bit? All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on YouView.com and YouView Content belong to YouView and/or YouView’s licensors. Please respect copyright. If they intend for that to cover the entirety of FOSS contribs, that's particularly cold. Not a fan of what's being done there at all. What I dislike almost as much is this revelation in that previously linked article: The seven partners in the project have each committed to contribute £4.5 million per year over the next four years to fund the platform, much of which will be spent on marketing. It doesn't need marketing to death, it needs a rock solid, intelligently designed and truly innovative UI and 'experience' (getting floaty now) to make it stand out from the noise. This project needs to excel and I fear it won't if much of the funding from the various parties ends up being spent on bus adverts and stupid Flash banners. They need to put their money in, leave it to experts to come up with the innovations and then let it simmer instead of hawk it and each want a piece of the pie (to the inevitable detriment of the entire project). Also WeView was a poor choice of name don't ye think? From a syllabic approach (sorry, I'm a linguist), TV is just about universal. SeeSaw wasn't great but still has some cross-linguistic compatibility. We and View can be quite complex syllables to pronounce if you don't speak much English and it evokes existing brands too much (Wii, Freeview etc). WeV just sounds stupid if you use the abbreviated form. (Would it become 'watching the Welly'?) Everybody's just going to call it on demand anyway, if they don't stick with Canvas... I quite like Canvas, particularly the concepts it evokes (plus it's a good name to 'say')
Re: [backstage] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
On 20 Sep 2010, at 14:37, Alex Cockell wrote: It's more the you will not attempt to reverse-engineer, decompile... Etc etc bit. Link? S - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
http://www.youview.com/terms-and-conditions/ Clauses 3.2.2, clause 5 (esp where the code is open source), clause 10. Basically it would appear that the jv are trying to close what was previously open. Also, I don't like the bit in the tech docs about updates failing silently. - Original message - On 20 Sep 2010, at 14:37, Alex Cockell wrote: It's more the you will not attempt to reverse-engineer, decompile... Etc etc bit. Link? S - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
On 20 Sep 2010, at 15:45, Alex Cockell wrote: http://www.youview.com/terms-and-conditions/ Clauses 3.2.2, clause 5 (esp where the code is open source), clause 10. Basically it would appear that the jv are trying to close what was previously open. IANAL and I don't work for Youview, but I would be astonished to discover that anyone intended those TCs to apply to anything other than the youview.com website itself. From section 2.1: '“YouView Content” means audio, video, text, images or other content made available by YouView to you through YouView.com.' Even when the TCs talk about applications, my suspicion is that they're talking about embedded video players and the like. Perhaps if I was a lawyer I would understand how you can deem people to have accepted arbitrary terms and conditions merely by visiting a website. :-) (I'm not too happy about click-wrap license agreements either. Or that most of the documents that were exchanged last time I bought a house were scanned and emailed, with paper copies following afterwards, if ever. Haven't these people heard of Photoshop?) Also, I don't like the bit in the tech docs about updates failing silently. Not sure I've seen that. S - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
Ahem. I think it's worth reading clause 1.1... These are terms for using the website and for content provided on You View. There's no claiming of copyright ownership over open source software. These Terms tell you how you may access and use YouView.com so please read them carefully. YouView may update these Terms from time to time so please review this page regularly. Other special terms may apply to your access and use of a particular service on YouView.com and may supplement or vary these Terms. If any special terms apply they will be set out where you access the relevant service on YouView.com. If you use YouView.com, you agree to be legally bound by whichever version of these Terms is in force at such time. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alex Cockell Sent: 20 September 2010 15:45 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView': http://www.youview.com/terms-and-conditions/ Clauses 3.2.2, clause 5 (esp where the code is open source), clause 10. Basically it would appear that the jv are trying to close what was previously open. Also, I don't like the bit in the tech docs about updates failing silently. - Original message - On 20 Sep 2010, at 14:37, Alex Cockell wrote: It's more the you will not attempt to reverse-engineer, decompile... Etc etc bit. Link? S - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 15:45, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote: http://www.youview.com/terms-and-conditions/ Clauses 3.2.2, clause 5 (esp where the code is open source), clause 10. Basically it would appear that the jv are trying to close what was previously open. Also worth noting that the CDPA has specific clauses to permit decompilation and disassembly for the purposes of interoperability which, if my memory serves, renders prohibitive clauses relating to the same void. However, the terms relate specifically to youview.com *content* and the website itself. It's not especially clear how this might relate to the YouView service as provided by OEMs and service providers, *especially* clause 9. In all honesty, it looks boilerplate. M. - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 15:45, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Ahem. I think it's worth reading clause 1.1... These are terms for using the website and for content provided on You View. There's no claiming of copyright ownership over open source software. [snip] If you use YouView.com, you agree to be legally bound by whichever version of these Terms is in force at such time. One day, somebody is going to realise quite how ridiculous this statement is. - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:09, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: People have been saying that for years. My favourite are the terms that say you have to have a licence to link to their site. Amongst my pet hates are the sites which cheerfully note that you don't need a licence to link to them (because although well-meaning, it serves to legitimise the stance of the above). - 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] 'Project Canvas' to be called 'YouView':
Agreed. So do you think it'll just be a case of 'watch this space' re licences in the final spec? Annoys the hell out of me that the Beeb seem to have forgotten about the enthusiasts with this obsession with locking everything down. Just changing tack for a sec... An open maint list for iPlayer clients would be good... And a GPL API would help... Same for Youview... - Original message - On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:09, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: People have been saying that for years. My favourite are the terms that say you have to have a licence to link to their site. Amongst my pet hates are the sites which cheerfully note that you don't need a licence to link to them (because although well-meaning, it serves to legitimise the stance of the above). - 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/
