On 01/08/07, Paul Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are times when I > think that the Linux community expects everything for nothing, and if it's > not forthcoming that a company is either "stupid" or "short sighted" or > similar.
No, the software freedom movement doesn't expect anything for nothing; it has worked relentlessly for over 20 years to write all the kinds of software that people like to use, and has come across several impediments such as unpublished hardware specifications and unpublished file formats that are now illegal to reverse engineer in the USA and elsewhere. The most commonly quoted area of free software lacking today is 3D graphics card drivers - but if the hardware vendors simply published how their hardware worked, they would exist, and the vendors themselves don't need to write any free software. Similarly, the BBC doesn't need to write any media player software - www.getmiro.com is one example of what is out there already - it just needs to publish data in non-proprietary formats. > As far as I can see, the Linux community (since that is who I > think is mainly driving the frustration at iPlayer) needs to realise that > sometimes, it will not win an argument where large-scale commercial concerns > will mean linux versions are unlikely to be released for free "For free" is not the issue. Freedom is the issue. With the software freedom community, when you read the word "free" it usually refers to freedom, not price. > and to top it > off, let's face it, the linux community could quite possibly be the biggest > load of hackers on the net, and therefore a commercial minefield. In this context, and historically, "hackers" means people who love to program, not people who "crack" security systems :-) > I can see > the lawyers saying something like "if we release this on linux too, we're > running a much greater risk of being hacked and losing millions of pounds". The risk that DRM will be cracked is very high - near certain - regardless of the operating system. > With MS, at least if someone hacks it, the BBC can tell MS to take some > action, thus providing some protection for their content. The fact that a > linux version won't be released at all because of the choice by the BBC to > tie itself to an MS product is I think a bigger mistake. The BBC is committed to releasing versions of iPlayer for other systems - but cross platform availability of DRM is not the issue. The restrictions are the issue. > ...waiting for the flames. lol - I've always found this list to be a model of etiquette :-) -- 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/
