Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 a GNU prefix which some people may fall into. matt signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 freedom and/or DRM crop-up also approach one. I hereby announce the creation of 'Highfield's law' - As an BBC Backstage discussion grows longer, the probability of a post involving Digital Restrictions Management, iPlayer or freedom approaches one :) matt signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Dan, Please stop posting the same message :) matt signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 companies) not share that right? The spirit of the General Public License is to allow and encourage cooperation. Tivo actions were contrary to that, refusing to allow you to run the software on hardware you'd purchased. matt signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 self proclaimed four freedoms. the freedom to use the software for any purpose. 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 Tivo was, they'd give you the code, but if you wanted to run your own binaries on the unit, you couldn't. Full disclosure: I'm intellectually bias against the GPL for other reasons, so take anything I say on the matter with that in mind. Do tell. Disclaimer: I'm a campaigns manager at the Free Software Foundation. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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, and adapt it to your needs * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Tivo are restricting YOUR freedom to run the program for any purpose. You buy a Tivo, it runs free software - except that Tivo won't let you exercise your freedoms under the GPL. It won't let you run modified GPL licensed software on your own computer, which in this case is a Tivo. At the basic level I find the GPL to be hypocritical, claiming to be free whilst imposing restrictions of it's own. The GPL doesn't, in my mind, impose any greater restriction that 'this software is free software and if you distribute it, you must ensure it stays free software, so that anyone receiving a copy has the same rights you did.' - nobody is forced to use GPL licensed software in their DVR, but if they do, then they should not restrict others. I dislike it's viral nature, I don't believe that it's free to make other people adopt your license. I also distrust the or any later version clause, I find changing terms and conditions unilaterally after they have been agreed to be unfair. You can remove the 'or later version' part. Also note it says 'at your option', so if something is GPLv2 or later versions, and you don't like the GPLv3, you can simply use it under the terms of GPLv2. As for making other people adopt your license - nobody is forcing anyone to use GPL software, but if they do, then the license is designed to ensure everyone who gets the software is entitled to the same freedoms. Are you really arguing that you should be free to oppress people if you desire? Both of the above would be fine if the FSF and RMS stopped claiming that the GPL is free, in an ordinary license they would be perfectly acceptable but from self proclaimed crusaders of freedom and good I find them hypocritical. I suppose that's my real objection to the GPL. The GPL is a free software license, just like the BSD license. The GPL differs however, in that is a copyleft license. Our work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. We want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, but its developers often want handouts from us. Copyleft refutes this. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html matt signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] The BBC Backstage Christmas Party 2007
Dave Crossland wrote: Who else is up for this? :-) How many other people would attend a parallel event, run somewhere outside London, like.. Manchester? matt signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] How long should copyright last?
Michael Sparks wrote: That's a rights expression, and is therefore a DRM. The restrictions however aren't enforced by anything other than your clearly high good will and estimation of Ian and your basic desire to not give him a headache :-) That's not DRM, that's rights expression, as you say. It's not managed, in any such way. I think Office 2007 can do something where you can't copy/print/forward certain mails. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] How long should copyright last?
Noah Slater wrote: On 29/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cc:prohibits rdf:resource=http://web.resource.org/cc/CommercialUse/ I would hasten to point out that I do not approve of non-commercial clauses. Avoid this licence and choose one that doesn't restrict freedom instead: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Actually, BY-SA would be best. It protects the rights, much like the GPL. Attribution only is not a strong copyleft. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Muddy Boots on Backstage
Adam wrote: You could argue that computers started this way 25 years ago with a central mainframe storing all the data centrally and we moved away from this architecture due to limited connection speeds. Or because the cost of running one big computer and a bunch of dumb terminals became less of an issue, when you can buy a computer in Tesco[1] for 200 quid With internet speeds increasing these online systems are very useful for the average user who sends emails, writes letters, etc, as they take away the burden of looking after software and keeping it up to date. This is something that most computer users don't always understand. Right, this is something that operating system providers can fix, tho. Plus ask a group when the last time they backed up their documents and a majority would probably say never or too long ago to be useful. Again, I'm not arguing against backups. They are useful things and everyone could backup more. [1] other supermarket chains are available -- Matt Lee (mattl at fsf dot org) Campaigns Manager, Free Software Foundation - http://www.fsf.org/ Support our work - http://donate.fsf.org/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
