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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland
Sent: 05 December 2007 11:49
To:
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
Hi All,
A date for your diary, 4-5th April which is a Friday and Saturday.
Over the Air is an event based around mobile development which you don't want
to miss.
There's little details right now, but you want to keep those dates free.
Cheers,
Ian Forrester
This e-mail is: [] private; [] ask
Can I just say, wow a debate on GPL v3 about a year after everyone else talked
about it? :)
Ian Forrester
This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable
Senior Producer, BBC Backstage
BC5 C3, Media Village, 201 Wood Lane, London W12 7TP
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
work: +44 (0)2080083965
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
Hello Backstagers,
It's time to submit XTech proposals again. Many from this list have
presented at XTech before, I'd be very happy to see lots of proposals
again! Announcement included below.
thanks!
Call for Participation -- XTech 2008
http://2008.xtech.org/
Dublin, Ireland. 6-9 May
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
http://www.liveuktv.com/
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, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nice idea
But how do you decide who is allowed to contribute to the Wiki?
MPs and civil servants?
MPs would still have to propose the wording of the acts. The idea is that
the lobbying and modifications would still happen as they
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
