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 confusion and is actually LESS free than GPLv2 (this isn't meant > to be trolling or flamebait, just a personal opinion). 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 legal system, not the licence's "freeness" so to speak. Likewise w/r trolling/flamebait. :) -- Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman - 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/
