Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 07/12/2007, Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stone free The Jimi Hendrix version. Smoke free All flights. fre The Tivo version. It seems the romance languages avoid the pitfall by sensibly having two words for the two ideas, just like for penguins. So I'm on a one-man campaign to import 'libre' into English. Oh, but people will confuse it with livre, which has two meanings in French, pound (both weight and money) and book. Sean - 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Noah Slater wrote: On 06/12/2007, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which Perl On Rails will be non proprietary. Not really, proprietry is the wrong word to use here. The word free is much more descriptive. It is perfectly possible to have free proprietary software. To eliminate confusion, I propose that we in future refer to the FSF definition of free as GNU/Free. I thank you. 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] 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
At 18:25 +0200 6/12/07, Martin Belam wrote: The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project m Yes, history repeating. The BBC closed down live public chatrooms too. I was in the Robert Elms Chatroom, sorely missed by many. Chat, but not too much? Interact? Yes, please. But not too much... Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 07/12/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Lee wrote: 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. You could, but it has the two disadvantages of being longer to type, and not being a joke. :-) Oh I don't know.. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Stone free The Jimi Hendrix version. Smoke free All flights. fre The Tivo version. It seems the romance languages avoid the pitfall by sensibly having two words for the two ideas, just like for penguins. So I'm on a one-man campaign to import 'libre' into English. Sean - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Matt Lee wrote: 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. You could, but it has the two disadvantages of being longer to type, and not being a joke. :-) 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Rhys Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People sometimes say that a particular TV programme makes the year's license fee worth paying. For me, being able to use code developed by the BBC does just that. Which reminds me about that excellent inhouse term extractor you seem to have - any chance of an API? :) It seems strange to talk of using code, but then ask for something other than code... Code APIs -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Wow! I leave it for a night, and the debate rages on. I not going to write an essay on the subject, so I'll try and address the important points as I see them, in a concise a manner as possible. First, Michael I can confirm that I am in fact a male (it's generally a male name, though you will occasionally find a female Vijay) Secondly, you've done a better job that I would have done at summarising my position. :-) Noah, you're taking my use of the word speech to literally; replace all instances of the word speech with expression and you'll get a better idea of where I'm coming from. Personally I believe (as you seemed to agree) that code is an art form, I don't know about you but I believe that art should enjoy the same protections as speech when it comes to freedom. Think of it this way, Imagine I'm a Labour supporter* and I take a photo (or perhaps draw a picture) of the Prime Minister to put on my wall, or sell or whatever. I believe that Private-Eye has every right to take a copy of that photo put a humorous caption on it and stick it on the front of their magazine in order to satirise the Prime Minister. I apply the same principles to my code. Take an example other that TIVO, say $Company uses my code to do something I don't like perhaps they sell something I find morally objectionable (from arms dealers to rap music; choose your bogeyman) and my code is used within their product, should I be able to stop them? I say, just as with the photo of the Prime Minister, stopping them would amount to censorship, and GPLv3 amounts to censoring TIVO. My position offers freedom without taking it away from others as people are free to not to buy Private-Eye, rap music or weaponry, just as people were free not to buy a TIVO. To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, no one is free to to not be offended. To the person who said GPLv3 is more idealistic: having reflected on it over night, I've realised that my position is in fact more idealistic than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. *I'm not, I can't stand any of our main political parties.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
vijay chopra wrote: To the person who said GPLv3 is more idealistic: having reflected on it over night, I've realised that my position is in fact more idealistic than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. I think rather than 'more idealistic' it's better to say that your ideals differ *a little*. IMH(umble)O: GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would rather not benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would rather benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by them. A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. I wonder if, rather like racism and feminism, has the tide turned enough so that we can compromise on the hearts and minds? Or do we still need positive discrimination? David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Noah, you're taking my use of the word speech to literally; replace all instances of the word speech with expression Expression is fine, people should have freedom of expression. I apply the same principles to my code. Take an example other that TIVO, say $Company uses my code to do something I don't like perhaps they sell something I find morally objectionable (from arms dealers to rap music; choose your bogeyman) and my code is used within their product, should I be able to stop them? Yes, because this is action not expression. If TIVO started using the software to smuggle arms or deal drugs then you are guaranteed that the government will stop them. To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, no one is free to to not be offended. Well, to be blunt, you are wrong. All of the customers who bought a TIVO did not have the same amount of freedom as people who would have installed the software on a normal PC. Your whole argument is based around conflating the freedom to express one's self and the freedom to take action - which are fundamentally different to one another. I may call you an idiot repeatedly and no law will stop me. I can start to punch you in the face repeatedly and I'll get locked up. BTW, I don't think you're an idiot, by any measure - just a colourful example. ;) -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I believe (as you seemed to agree) that code is an art form I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, but artworks themselves do not function. My position offers freedom without taking it away from others as people are free to not to buy Private-Eye, rap music or weaponry, just as people were free not to buy a TIVO. But its illegal (software idea patent and dmca-style laws) to make your own TiVO, and to make one and sell one. So you can not buy a tivo, but you can't buy a free alternative. To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, Generally, users of proprietary software have given up their freedom. To say the company making the software took their freedom is only valid when they are forced to use the software - such as legal requirements to read documents in a format only readable by proprietary office software. my position is in fact more idealistic than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. Your ideals do not seem to include freedom for all users; instead, power for developers. The point of the software freedom movement is that users and developers should have the same degree of power over the development of the software. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or do we still need positive discrimination? We need the GPLv3. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 05/12/2007, Matthew Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The delay is just a small-team-working-on-/programmes-and-trying-to-fit-it-all-in thing. Any chance of explaining what the BBC actually have to do when someone says let's open source Y? It's normally a relatively simple for a small individual project (simply adding the appropriate license file and copyright text to each file). However I assume it is somewhat more tricky for a large organisation. Does this have to work it's way up to high management or are individual teams given freedom to make these decisions themselves? Or are you busy removing all the derogatory/rude comments entered into the code? (Scarily this does happen in some places, even with open source code.) Will you be accepting bug reports and patches from people outside the BBC or is this a release and forget kind of thing? (Unfortunately I am not a Perl coder so there isn't much I can do). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Oh my word this is all so tiresome - rehashed, insoluble debate points surrounded in prose which is itself quite retentively picked apart to needlessly point score - in a discussion I'm sure 90% of the list would prefer not to be cluttering their inboxes. I can visit Slashdot for this no ? Please... please more signal; less noise. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 06 December 2007 11:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I believe (as you seemed to agree) that code is an art form I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, but artworks themselves do not function. My position offers freedom without taking it away from others as people are free to not to buy Private-Eye, rap music or weaponry, just as people were free not to buy a TIVO. But its illegal (software idea patent and dmca-style laws) to make your own TiVO, and to make one and sell one. So you can not buy a tivo, but you can't buy a free alternative. To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, Generally, users of proprietary software have given up their freedom. To say the company making the software took their freedom is only valid when they are forced to use the software - such as legal requirements to read documents in a format only readable by proprietary office software. my position is in fact more idealistic than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. Your ideals do not seem to include freedom for all users; instead, power for developers. The point of the software freedom movement is that users and developers should have the same degree of power over the development of the software. -- 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/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, but artworks themselves do not function. Then we'll have to agree to disagree. But its illegal (software idea patent and dmca-style laws) to make your own TiVO, and to make one and sell one. So you can not buy a tivo, but you can't buy a free alternative. Tell that to the MythTV box I'm building. It looks and feels like a free alternative to me. Generally, users of proprietary software have given up their freedom. To say the company making the software took their freedom is only valid when they are forced to use the software - such as legal requirements to read documents in a format only readable by proprietary office software. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Your ideals do not seem to include freedom for all users; instead, power for developers. Yes they do, users have the choice to take the original source, compile it and then run it if they want. In my world, developers and users have identical freedoms. The point of the software freedom movement is that users and developers should have the same degree of power over the development of the software. They do, well informed users do anyway; I'm a user of many FOSS products (both large and small) I regularly submit bug reports and feature requests etc. If a user can't be bothered to inform themselves that's their problem. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMH(umble)O: GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would rather not benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would rather benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by them. I think that you've hit the nail on the head here. A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. Thankfully. I wonder if, rather like racism and feminism, has the tide turned enough so that we can compromise on the hearts and minds? Or do we still need positive discrimination? David Positive discrimination has always been wrong, indeed in this country (UK) it's illegal* and rightfully so; as you seem to imply GPLv3 is a kind of positive discrimination for software and unneeded. *closest thing I could find to a reference: http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/8063 Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Thursday 06 December 2007 11:29:53 Dave Crossland wrote: [ assertion is: code is like art (as well as like speech) ] I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, but artworks themselves do not function. No, the difference is that not all art has a function beyond existing. Similarly, you can argue the same about languages like brainf*** and perl modules like the Buffy module, and poetry written in perl, as well as systems written in processing (where the underlying source functions in the same way as paint in a painting). Code itself can have beauty. It can also be revolting. Art can be said to be in the eye of the beholder. Much that is engineered is beautiful and is my view art. I'm very much with Paul Graham when I agree that software is as much art as it is engineering. Indeed, despite having a CS degree I view it as more engineering and art than I do science. Also, if you recognise it as both, engineering and art, you gain the benefits of the disciplines of each. (Sketch books for testing ideas, practice, testing, play, exploration; component decomposition, assertion, test based specification then test driven development, he says summarising a 1/2 hour talk from Pycon on the idea.) Not particularly interested in the TIVO conversation myself. :-) Michael. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Oh my word this is all so tiresome - rehashed, insoluble debate points surrounded in prose which is itself quite retentively picked apart to needlessly point score - in a discussion I'm sure 90% of the list would prefer not to be cluttering their inboxes. I can visit Slashdot for this no ? Please... please more signal; less noise. Seconded. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 06 December 2007 11:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally I believe (as you seemed to agree) that code is an art form I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, but artworks themselves do not function. My position offers freedom without taking it away from others as people are free to not to buy Private-Eye, rap music or weaponry, just as people were free not to buy a TIVO. But its illegal (software idea patent and dmca-style laws) to make your own TiVO, and to make one and sell one. So you can not buy a tivo, but you can't buy a free alternative. To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, Generally, users of proprietary software have given up their freedom. To say the company making the software took their freedom is only valid when they are forced to use the software - such as legal requirements to read documents in a format only readable by proprietary office software. my position is in fact more idealistic than that of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. Your ideals do not seem to include freedom for all users; instead, power for developers. The point of the software freedom movement is that users and developers should have the same degree of power over the development of the software. -- 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/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Thomas Leitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh my word this is all so tiresome - rehashed, insoluble debate points surrounded in prose which is itself quite retentively picked apart to needlessly point score - in a discussion I'm sure 90% of the list would prefer not to be cluttering their inboxes. I can visit Slashdot for this no ? I actually think this thread has been highly relivent. You don't agree and that's fine, you couldn't hope for anything more. My mail client has a mute button, how about yours? Please... please more signal; less noise. On this list, the noise /is/ the signal. You are invited to filter. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes they do, users have the choice to take the original source, compile it and then run it if they want. In my world, developers and users have identical freedoms. Yes they do, but what if a vendor takes the source, adds loads of improvements, and then removes the freedoms explicitly given in the original licence? The users are free to go upstream for the original source but it will be missing the key features the vendor added. This happens, all the time. Take Apple and WebKit for example. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by Why would you want to benefit selfish people? However, this is your choice, and I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong - just that I don't understand why. I do think your arguments about freedom of expression are highly confused and potentially misleading to people who might not otherwise know very much about the issues involved and as such could be considered a sort of FUD. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On this list, the noise /is/ the signal. You are invited to filter. He was attempting to apply an ingress filter. Which is significanly more effective than n x egress filters. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra They do, well informed users do anyway; I'm a user of many FOSS products (both large and small) I regularly submit bug reports and feature requests etc. If a user can't be bothered to inform themselves that's their problem. Vijay. Right, so we're not concerned with our users unless they behave in the right way and share the same interests and abilities as us. Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain for users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Noah Slater wrote: On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by Why would you want to benefit selfish people? To do so would be truly unselfish - to turn the other cheek. To teach by example in the face of adversity :) However when you are but one in an armed horde it *can* be foolish and ultimately futile. David PS If you thought that was a religious sentiment then think again. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
vijay chopra wrote: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPLv3 cares about making the code available and, if forced to, would rather not benefit people who won't share than allow them not to share. You care about making your code (re-)usable, but, if forced to, would rather benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by them. I think that you've hit the nail on the head here. A respectable position that I think you share with Linus. Thankfully. I think the kernel is 'safe' - it's reached a point where Tivoisation (and MS/Intel Trusted Computing et al) *probably* won't topple it. A bit like feminism in the west. Positive discrimination has always been wrong, indeed in this country (UK) it's illegal* and rightfully so; as you seem to imply GPLv3 is a kind of positive discrimination for software and unneeded. It is just an analogy and, on consideration, I don't think 'positive discrimination' is quite right. However, like discrimination, we do need to legislate for 'fair' behaviour - the approach where I treat people as my equal in this community but I don't require them to treat me (or others) as their equal doesn't always work without legislation. GPLv3 is the legislative approach. GPLv2 is the other cheek approach. David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain for users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with. Sadly the BBC has disdain for users when it goes along with DRM. -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only! - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He was attempting to apply an ingress filter. Which is significanly more effective than n x egress filters. Asking the whole list to filter it's self to one's own preferences seems a little selfish, don't ya think? ;) -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: benefit people who won't share than prevent your code from being used by Why would you want to benefit selfish people? It's called leading by example. However, this is your choice, and I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong - just that I don't understand why. Because I believe it's the morally right thing to do in certain circumstances. I do think your arguments about freedom of expression are highly confused and potentially misleading to people who might not otherwise know very much about the issues involved and as such could be considered a sort of FUD. Just because you don't like or because it challenges your beliefs it doesn't make it FUD, it's a legitimate argument about the nature of freedom and how it relates to software freedom. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right, so we're not concerned with our users unless they behave in the right way and share the same interests and abilities as us. No, if people wish to use any software (yes, even non-free) they need to learn how to do it. If they don't want to learn they won't be able to use it, that's a fact, not an opinion; why do you think things like the ECDL are mandatory for many jobs nowadays? Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain for users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with. I only have disdain for people who want things done for them, and do not wish to educate themselves. However, if you want to learn, I'll be happy to help teach you. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/12/2007, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He was attempting to apply an ingress filter. Which is significanly more effective than n x egress filters. Asking the whole list to filter it's self to one's own preferences seems a little selfish, don't ya think? ;) If they were only mine, certainly. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just because you don't like or because it challenges your beliefs it doesn't make it FUD, it's a legitimate argument about the nature of freedom and how it relates to software freedom. I say it's misleading because your argument seems to boil down to I am free to say what I want therefor I should be free to do what I want. which is clearly absurd. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just because you don't like or because it challenges your beliefs it doesn't make it FUD, it's a legitimate argument about the nature of freedom and how it relates to software freedom. I say it's misleading because your argument seems to boil down to I am free to say what I want therefor I should be free to do what I want. which is clearly absurd. And you are free to carry on misrepresenting my argument. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you are free to carry on misrepresenting my argument. That is actually the first time you've disagreed with my point. How am I misrepresenting your argument? I'm genuinely open to correction. From how I parse your arguments you are saying just like free speech, people should be able to take software and redistribute it with whatever licencing they choose which is the same as saying just like free speech, people should be able to take software and take any action they like with it. This simply doesn't make any sense to me. -- 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/
RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crossland Sent: 06 December 2007 14:24 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain for users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with. Sadly the BBC has disdain for users when it goes along with DRM. -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only! - 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/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Thomas Leitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Well, technically you should call it Leitch's Law. :) -- 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/
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
On 06/12/2007, Matt Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 :) The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project Isn't the definition of an echo chamber one where the same opinion is magnified between a group of like-minded individuals to the point of loosing context? If anything this list is a melting pot of people with vastly different opinions. The people complaining that this thread, or any thread about freedom, is boring/noise are indirectly trying to promote a heterogeneous environment which would lead directly to the echo chamber you speak about. So things get quite heated around here? It's healthy. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Martin Belam wrote: The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project Martin Belam wrote: The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... Or by closing the list if it was deemed to be an unhelpful echo chamber that wasn't beneficial to the BBC for the amount of money spent on the backstage.bbc.co.uk project I just found this gem: http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html [[ We now have a brand new list that is totally devoted to technical developer questions and answers - no wide ranging discussions about DRM and the like, just pure tech development talk straight from the community. ... It works in exactly the same way as the main backstage list but we’re going to take a much firmer view on what is discussed there – the developer list will be completely developer focused, and by that I mean messages along the lines of ‘Where’s the Weather API stuff?’ or ‘I’ve just built X give it a go’. ]] blog post (which I missed when it happened) http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/10/new_backstage_d.html Seems to be archived and searchable at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Testing the waters... http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=DRMl=backstage-developer%40lists.bbc.co.uk 0 matches No matches were found for DRM ... 0 matches No matches were found for freedom (compare http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=DRMl=backstage%40lists.bbc.co.uk 913 hits, television 254, freedom 169 ) I'm in :) cheers, Dan - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
james - i love ya! - I laughed From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cridland Sent: Wed 05/12/2007 10:44 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software 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 DRM to our podcasts?* //j * the above was a joke. We are not adding DRM to our podcasts.
RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Hi Guys, So yes its getting long in the day but like someone already pointed out there is a development only list too and we would only really jump in when things get out of hand. Don't worry there's lots more to talk about including over the air ;) 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 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Lee Sent: 06 December 2007 17:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software Dan, Please stop posting the same message :) matt - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Martin Belam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... Or by closing the list The only result of that would be displacement. Unsolicited user feedback is here to stay :-) -- Regards, Dave Personal opinion only! - 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] 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
On 06/12/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The difference is that the BBC could drop the probability to zero by not requiring the use of proprietary software... That wouldn't drop the probability to zero. In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which Perl On Rails will be non proprietary. Even if the BBC didn't hate freedom so much and made all it's software Free Software I highly suspect there would still be conversations about the right free software/Open Source license to use. Didn't this whole discussion arise out of the thought that GPL is not as free as BSD license? (though as an aside I too would prefer if the BBC didn't require the use of non-Free software, I would also prefer they didn't use my license fee to developing proprietary software) Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 06/12/2007, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact isn't the bulk of this thread concerned with the way in which Perl On Rails will be non proprietary. Not really, proprietry is the wrong word to use here. The word free is much more descriptive. It is perfectly possible to have free proprietary software. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Dec 6, 2007 2:23 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/12/2007, Deirdre Harvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hurray for freedom. I'm sure you'll appreciate that that kind of disdain for users is not something the BBC is likely to go along with. Sadly the BBC has disdain for users when it goes along with DRM. HOUSE!! Licences, open-source, and now DRM, all in one thread! How splendid... ly tiresome
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Dec 6, 2007 12:16 PM, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/12/2007, Matthew Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The delay is just a small-team-working-on-/programmes-and-trying-to-fit-it-all-in thing. Any chance of explaining what the BBC actually have to do when someone says let's open source Y? It's normally a relatively simple for a small individual project (simply adding the appropriate license file and copyright text to each file). However I assume it is somewhat more tricky for a large organisation. Does this have to work it's way up to high management or are individual teams given freedom to make these decisions themselves? Will you be accepting bug reports and patches from people outside the BBC or is this a release and forget kind of thing? (Unfortunately I am not a Perl coder so there isn't much I can do). I was asked, and readily agreed to it being made open-source. (Dunno if I count as high management - http://james.cridland.net/biography ). I trust my team to make the right decision. Chatting today, we think we'll release it quickly as a .tar.gz at /opensource, and then, depending on the reaction we get, put it on a Sourceforge-or-similar site, to allow bug reports, patches, etc etc. Please do give us time to release it; I'd rather this work didn't get in the way of delivering great tools and products. As a note, this will be the second time that a member of my team has released code to /opensource; the first was a bit of Java: http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/projects/tv_anytime_api/ Hope that helps. //j
Licensing of BBC open source code (was RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software)
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: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software 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, 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). http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html explains. -- 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/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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, 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). http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html explains. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 proliferation. Why is license proliferation a problem? The more licenses, the more choices you and I have as developers about the terms and conditions we wish to license software under. Don't Like the GPL? try BSD. Doesn't suite you either? As I can't afford a lawyer to draft me my own license I'll just have to try the apache license to see if it meets my needs etc. etc. Now I might be able to add the BBC license to that list. 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). http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html explains. 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? Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 licensewise with other code. So we take advantage of the MPL's stipulation where it says you can say other licenses you can use as well. Hence that's why we use the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license (same as firefox) - it maxmises compatibility. Also Dirac Kamaelia are both designed to sit inside power things as libraries so allowing use under the LGPL is important, since the intent is to maximise who can use these things against a balance of protecting the the license fee payers investment. The more licenses you have, the harder it becomes to figure out compatibility. (It's not like adding a module to creative commons) Example: 2 pieces of code under two very different licenses: 1 You may only distribute code on tuesdays 2 You may only distribute code on thursdays You can't merge code under these two licenses and redistribute since you'd breach one license or the other. Michael. - 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: Licensing of BBC open source code (was RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software)
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 under GPL. Matt On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:57:26 -, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 as to use. The reason being (as I understand it*) that to use the GPL would mean that anything written with Pearl on Rails would then have to be licensed using the GPL; this would be grossly unfair to developers who should be free to license their own software as they see fit. *If I am wrong on this point please correct me, the 'viral' part of the GPL has always confused me. Vijay. -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, FMT, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 speech unless it difficult to hear what I'm saying. Similarly it's not software freedom unless it's hard to bear what I'm doing to your code. I have no idea what your argument is, sorry. Could you rephrase? -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 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 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. Actually TIVO complied with the GPLv2 thus my rights under the GPL were unaffected. Are you really arguing that you should be free to oppress people if you desire? 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 Irving say, but I would defend their right to say it; similarly I will defend TIVOs rights to run free software in any way. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 to talk about this in terms of free speech you are arguing that as a member of society you should be able to take a sentence such as I love apples and forbid anyone else from ever saying it again. How does Godwin's law apply here? Because you mentioned the Haulocaust. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 absurd. Actually I'd compare free speech; it's not free speech unless it difficult to hear what I'm saying. Similarly it's not software freedom unless it's hard to bear what I'm doing to your code. I have no idea what your argument is, sorry. Could you rephrase? There are many people all over the world who say things I don't like racists, bigots and extremists of all flavours. What they say is often hard to listen too, but without the ability for people to air those views our speech wouldn't be free speech, it'd be censored. Similarly it's only truly free software when companies like TIVO have the ability to do with free software anything that they wish, even if it's difficult to stomach. Otherwise you're you end up doing the software equivalent of censorship to TIVO. That's not free. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 this too... in the US, Guantanamo Bay abides by (avoids) the rules of the Geneva Convention (by declaring the inmates 'illegal combatants') and their constitution (by careful geo-location of the camp). So that makes it OK then :) [I wonder if Godwins law will ever be extended to include Bush? Please.] 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. Actually TIVO complied with the GPLv2 thus my rights under the GPL were unaffected. Yes, and? Having spotted this, the FSF decided that the rules needed to be more explicit for the future. GPL2 = idealistically driven but loose enough for pragmatists. GPL3 = idealistically driven and a bit tight for some pragmatists. Are you really arguing that you should be free to oppress people if you desire? similarly I will defend TIVOs rights to run free software in any way. No-one/nothing (including GPL3) stops that. But what about *my* 'right' to modify run the GPL software that I got via Tivo? Oh, I can't. Tivo saw to that. Tivo are free to use BSD licensed software. IIRC the spirit of that license is designed to support their use. But no, they *chose* to use GPL and to run counter to the spirit. The idealists didn't like that so they tried to stop it for the future. David - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 and not code I totally reject this premise and hence the whole argument falls apart for me. Software is an act of creativity (like art or poetry) and is different from the act of expression. Vijay's arguments are based upon conflating the freedom to express one's self with the freedom to create/modify/distribute a creative work. There is nothing you could say that would ever restrict someone's ability say something. The analogy is completely flawed. If we really run with Vijay's argument (which is totally absurd and hence this is going to get a bit abstract) then I could say I love apples and his argument would dictate that you could come along and take my words and say them again but forbid ANYONE ELSE from saying them. Is that really freedom? -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 you're saying something I don't like? By your arguments I should have this freedom. Some freedoms need to be protected by PREVENTING people from doing certain things. -- 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/
RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Greaves Sent: 05 December 2007 19:04 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software 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 this too... in the US, Guantanamo Bay abides by (avoids) the rules of the Geneva Convention (by declaring the inmates 'illegal combatants') and their constitution (by careful geo-location of the camp). So that makes it OK then :) [I wonder if Godwins law will ever be extended to include Bush? Please.] 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. Actually TIVO complied with the GPLv2 thus my rights under the GPL were unaffected. Yes, and? Having spotted this, the FSF decided that the rules needed to be more explicit for the future. GPL2 = idealistically driven but loose enough for pragmatists. GPL3 = idealistically driven and a bit tight for some pragmatists. Are you really arguing that you should be free to oppress people if you desire? similarly I will defend TIVOs rights to run free software in any way. No-one/nothing (including GPL3) stops that. But what about *my* 'right' to modify run the GPL software that I got via Tivo? Oh, I can't. Tivo saw to that. Tivo are free to use BSD licensed software. IIRC the spirit of that license is designed to support their use. But no, they *chose* to use GPL and to run counter to the spirit. The idealists didn't like that so they tried to stop it for the future. David - 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/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 communication; a way of expressing something, unless you believe in the fallacy of intellectual property. Anyway, I'm calling Godwin's Law on this. How does Godwin's law apply here? As a ... discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html Neither have been mentioned, only general bigots.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 Irving say, but I would defend their right to say it; similarly I will defend TIVOs rights to run free software in any way. 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. Anyway, I'm calling Godwin's Law on this. End of discussion. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 express one's self without restriction. The four freedoms of the GPL are to do with modification/distribution/usage/opacity and are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT both practically and metaphorically. The GPL v3 does not restrict your freedom to speak the source code it restricts your freedom to remove the freedom to modify/distribute/use/study. Software is an act of creativity (like art or poetry) Poetry is speech. Yes, it's also a creative act. So say I write a poem called Noah is awsum and I licenced it under the GPL v3 all I would be doing is stopping you from removing the freedom to modify/distribute/use/study. I would not be restricting your freedom to recite the poem and hence the whole analogy to free speech is wrong. Vijay's argument is conflating the freedom to perform/speak/run with the freedom to alter further modification/distribution/usage/opacity. These two things are not the same, they're not even related. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 perhaps property, not a written simply expression that cannot be suppressed. If I write some code it doesn't matter what anyone else does with it, my code is written and out in the open. Some freedoms need to be protected by PREVENTING people from doing certain things. I agree, but those things should be as minimal as possible; in the case of speech I am of the opinion that only speech that puts people in direct harm should be stopped. In the case of code, once it's created nothing can stop it. It's a set of 1s and 0s that can be copied ad infinitum, just because one person or group of people take that code and do something I don't like with it, doesn't mean 100 others can't do something good with it. My code hasn't been gagged a million others are free to use it. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 you take it up with Vijay or Matt not me :-) (It's not my analogy, and it's been on Matt's org's website for a longer than I can remember ( 10 years) ). (I must admit I'm thinking of gnu.org there though rather than fsf.org) That said, as I said, you're welcome to disagree. I don't know why you're shouting at me though, I was explaining as I understood it Vijay's extension of the analogy regarding a definition of free software. I wasn't speaking about the GPL (any version) at all. (You asked for clarification on what Vijay was referring to, so I explained _his_ definition as I understood it. (I don't have to agree with an idea to explain it) Incidentally, where you say this: The four freedoms of the GPL are to do with modification/distribution/usage/opacity and are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT both practically and metaphorically. As well as shouting, you're also agreeing with me. I also said they're different: ... that page is using [free speech] as a means of /explanation/ rather than definition (perhaps). The definition there is based on defining a set of rules and then applying Kant's law of universality. (cf Kantian ethics/golden rule in the GNU manifesto) That's practically and metaphorically different (as well as a different philosophical basis). Indeed that was the point being raised - that there are different possible views from a similar starting point and despite a similar moral desire. (each of which may find the other invalid) I found it fascinating, you _appear_ to (to me) find it aggravating. I'll leave it there, since we're actually agreeing on the fact they're different, but you're shouting at me. Regards, Michael. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 first new thinking in the area I've seen in aaages, despite a common starting point. I've always taken the free as being free as in free speech, not as in free beer. You can treat it otherways too. (Free as in freedom, not as in beer) That said, this document is fairly old: * http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html 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) Also, that page is using that as a means of /explanation/ rather than definition (perhaps). The definition there is based on defining a set of rules and then applying Kant's law of universality. (cf Kantian ethics/golden rule in the GNU manifesto) You are of course welcome to disagree with that analogy as well. (After all, it's used there as analogy, not as definition) Free speech Free Thought after all :-D Once again, with the premise I'm not sure I agree or disagree with Vijay's assertion (Either way it'll be a private thing for me :) ) That said, I fail to see how it's not like free speech however if you say this: Software is an act of creativity (like art or poetry) Poetry is speech. If we really run with Vijay's argument (which is totally absurd and hence this is going to get a bit abstract) then I could say I love apples and his argument would dictate that you could come along and take my words and say them again but forbid ANYONE ELSE from saying them. Is that really freedom? Personally, I'd say no. I am not the world though. But I'd also say that's not what he[1] said either. He said that he could say I love apples, and then if you have free speech anyone can copy him saying that (which I believe is true in a public place). They could do so to the extent of taking a recording of him and selling it. Not only that they can take his speech and use it against him. (I can't see how a liking of apples can be used against him) [1] I get really confused with the gender of non-anglo saxon names. If I've got the wrong gender, my deepest apologies in advance ! Oh I don't know. *thinks* What's an example. Suppose there's an oppressive regime exporting apples. They want to sell them so do some advertising. They take the free (as in speech) recording of Vijay saying I like apples and put that right next to images of a regime he doesn't like. If the license was CC-BY, that can happen quite easily, but matches Vijay's definition of free speech. Likewise they could even take said recording and embed it into a DRM system that only plays on AmigaOS 2.1 because they don't want it a very freely available piece of propaganda. That would be the equivalent of closing the code. I think. Bear in mind it's not my argument, I'm just thinking it through, so there's likely to be holes. I *do* think its fascinating though :-) Michael. -- views above might not be anyones :-) - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 tonal emphasis. Really, I didn't think you were talking it the wrong way but you were, so for that sorry. :) -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 DRM to our podcasts?* //j * the above was a joke. We are not adding DRM to our podcasts.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 that they wish See above for my emphasis. There is such a huge difference between the freedom to say something and the freedom to do something. I would defend your right to be racist and oppose your right to discriminate, for example. I am happy for TIVO to **SAY** anything they want about my software, free software or anything else for that matter. But when TIVO want to take freedom's away from me I will opose it. Talking about the freedom to take away freedoms is absurd. 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. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 have before. I specifically waiver freedoms given to me by copyright law so that YOU may do more things with my creative work. You are free not to use my software or print the source code as many times as you want or any of the other muddy analogies you have drawn between software and freedom of speech What I DO object to however is if you take my software and rip out the freedoms I sacrificed in the first place. If you take my software, remove the freedoms, and then give to someone else. Why on earth would I want to give you the freedom to do this? Who are YOU to take MY creative work and shackle it with more restrictions? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, the two concepts are totally unrelated and you are confusing matters greatly by trying to find a link where there is non. Actually I mentioned a holocaust denier as an example of someone an holding an extreme point of view. Godwin does not apply. I don't care how you mentioned it, when a discussion about the GPL starts to involve /anything/ related to the Holocaust it's a good indicator that things have started to get a bit silly. -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 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: Licensing of BBC open source code (was RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software)
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 as to use. The reason being (as I understand it*) that to use the GPL would mean that anything written with Pearl on Rails would then have to be licensed using the GPL; this would be grossly unfair to developers who should be free to license their own software as they see fit. *If I am wrong on this point please correct me, the 'viral' part of the GPL has always confused me. Vijay.
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
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 for releasing this to the world. I'm frankly agnostic when it comes to licenses, and I'm just glad that you'll be getting this out there. People sometimes say that a particular TV programme makes the year's license fee worth paying. For me, being able to use code developed by the BBC does just that. Which reminds me about that excellent inhouse term extractor you seem to have - any chance of an API? :) Rhys - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 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/
Re: Licensing of BBC open source code (was RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software)
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 under the Artistic licence and the GPL. Cheers Jonathan - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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); GPLv3, however upsets that fine balance. Vijay. On 05/12/2007, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have no idea what your argument is, sorry. Could you rephrase? I *think* what he was saying was similar to: If you have free speech then there is going to be someone who says something you don't like, but they still have the right to say it as that is what free speech is. In the context of Free Software I think that would mean that if you have true freedom them some people are going to do something with your software you dislike (i.e. take away the freedom of others). By not allowing people to resuse your source in a way that you disagree with are you not taking away some of their freedom? I personally disagree with Vijay's point of view, but he has every right to say it (see Free Speech allows Vijay to say something I disagree with, of course under Free Speech I have an equal right to voice an opposite opinion). It is an interesting question though, should someone the ability to remove others freedoms be considered a prerequisite of their freedom? No news on the Radio Labs blog yet. Stay tuned people http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/ Always nice to provide a link. I think that sometimes the BBC staff forget that us public may not know exactly where to find everything they mention, luckily my good friend Google lent a hand (other search engines are available). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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: Licensing of BBC open source code (was RE: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software)
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 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 under GPL. Matt On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:57:26 -, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 as to use. The reason being (as I understand it*) that to use the GPL would mean that anything written with Pearl on Rails would then have to be licensed using the GPL; this would be grossly unfair to developers who should be free to license their own software as they see fit. *If I am wrong on this point please correct me, the 'viral' part of the GPL has always confused me. Vijay. -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, FMT, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 Tivo was, they'd give you the code, but if you wanted to run your own binaries on the unit, you couldn't. What about their freedom to use the software for *any* purpose? ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) (emphasis mine) Or does that not extend to purposes that the FSF doesn't like? Coming in GPLv4 a clause stating that Microsoft can't use GPL'd code internally without releasing changes? Just because it's discovered that Microsoft is using GPL code but not distributing it, so doesn't need to share it's changes. This will be known as Microsoftisation. Targeting specific actions by specific people or companies is a dangerous path to start down. 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. I really don't want to get bogged down in a license flamewar, so please don't take anything I say the wrong way. At the basic level I find the GPL to be hypocritical, claiming to be free whilst imposing restrictions of it's own. This is the answer I gave to someone who mailed me off list asking the same question: 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. 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. IMO the licenses that can claim to be truly free are the BSD and similar other permissive licenses. I make no judgment on whether either is better though, they are both tailored for different circumstances. Disclaimer: I'm a campaigns manager at the Free Software Foundation. The FSF is an organization with a noble goal and I admire it in many ways, but (there's always a but), and this may sound harsh, but it's what I feel and perceive, why have you let it become a cult of personality around thee ego of RMS? The FSF needs to be bigger than one person, currently (from the outside) it seems to be being used as a tool to further the agenda of a single individual.
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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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. Similarly it's not software freedom unless it's hard to bear what I'm doing to your code. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 targeted at/the team's personal preference, doesn't need a new license :-) The closest I've come to this is when we drafted a contributor agreement for Kamaelia (on the website if curious) - which we used for Summer of Code contributions. Even then despite the need for a contributor agreement (to protect contributors the BBC), there was significant pushback for 2 reasons: * The lawyers thought we were asking for too many rights over the code. (we ask for less than the FSF ask for the GNU project though, because we just ask for a license that allows relicense as MPL/GPL/LGPL to ensure the person who goes after violations is the BBC (in a similar way the FSF can for GNU). When I pointed out that this is a benefit for contributors and that contributors would however retain full rights over their own code, they became happier. * They didn't particularly want to risk license proliferation or going outside industry norms (our agreement is based on the python community's agreement, just with necessary minimum changes) BBC legal were really nice helpful BTW, and really interested in not doing the wrong thing, and really interested (as am I) in not going too far. We also provided people a mechanism of contributing without a contributor agreement as well. On Wednesday 05 December 2007 11:48:48 Dave Crossland wrote: I strongly hope that the BBC will not contribute to the problem of license proliferation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/opensource/licensing.shtml Gives an overview of licenses the BBC has used in the past. Michael. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 legal system, not the licence's freeness so to speak. Likewise w/r trolling/flamebait. :) 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. Full disclosure: I'm intellectually bias against the GPL for other reasons, so take anything I say on the matter with that in mind.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Dec 3, 2007 12:48 PM, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't need the BBC to release it.
Yeah, a lot of the comments on that blog post said similar things -
that notwithstanding it would be very helpful for the community if the
BBC shared the source.
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.
It'll be licenced as openly as possible. You asked for it, so we'll give you
it.
Please watch the BBC Radio Labs blog for more information; we'll post when
we're ready.
In terms of the posting linked-to by Tom Loosemore, I've a blog post waiting
to go up on the BBC Internet Blog (which may appear tomorrow); the gag from
the bottom is...
sub job_requirement {
my $target = shift;
$target = 'this' unless defined $target;
return You don't need to understand $target to work at the BBC\n;
}
print job_requirement(perl);
... so hasten yourself to www.bbc.co.uk/jobs now.
--
James Cridland | Head of Future Media Technology, BBC Audio Music
Interactive
Room 718 | Henry Wood House | 3-6 Langham Place | London W1B 3DF
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio | http://www.bbc.co.uk/music |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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. It'll be licenced as openly as possible. You asked for it, so we'll give you it. Wow. Thread delivers. Thanks beeb! Can I suggest that you licence the code under the GNU Affero GPL v3 please. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html -- Noah Slater http://www.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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 04/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can I suggest that you licence the code under the GNU Affero GPL v3 please. I expect the BBC will use an in house licence to fit it's needs as set out in the charter. 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). Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Quoting Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello, This email is directed at the BBC staffers on the list. I was excited to read about the Perl on Rails framework you have developed internally: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2007/11/perl_on_rails.shtml Unfortunately, the post doesn't make any reference to the possibility of the BBC releasing the source back into the community as Free Software. Does anyone know more about this or the BBC's intentions? You don't need the BBC to release it. If you want Perl's answer to Ruby on Rails (with all the restrictions that implies) then take a look at Jifty (http://jifty.org/). If, on the other hand, you want an MVC framework with all the flexibility and power that you expect from Perl then take a look at Catalyst (http://catalyst.perl.org/). 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't need the BBC to release it. Yeah, a lot of the comments on that blog post said similar things - that notwithstanding it would be very helpful for the community if the BBC shared the source. I should imagine that running a site the size of the BBC could influence the engineering somewhat in way which would be useful/interesting to study. We'll never know unless they free up the code. :) -- Noah Slater http://www.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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 03/12/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't need the BBC to release it. Yeah, a lot of the comments on that blog post said similar things - that notwithstanding it would be very helpful for the community if the BBC shared the source. I should imagine that running a site the size of the BBC could influence the engineering somewhat in way which would be useful/interesting to study. We'll never know unless they free up the code. :) open sourcing code will only take you so far: http://iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-fails-at-the-internet/ Whilst I applaud the technical achievement of the individual developers, I deplore the situation that has forced them to do this. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 03/12/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: open sourcing code will only take you so far: I never mentioned Open Source. I ask for them to make it Free Software. :) Whilst I applaud the technical achievement of the individual developers, I deplore the situation that has forced them to do this. Well yes, quite, but it would still be a contribution to society. -- Noah Slater http://www.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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Quoting Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I should imagine that running a site the size of the BBC could influence the engineering somewhat in way which would be useful/interesting to study. Well this only runs the tiniest part of the BBC site. Like most of the myriad clever pieces of code at the BBC :-) 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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
Quoting Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well this only runs the tiniest part of the BBC site. Like most of the myriad clever pieces of code at the BBC :-) Agreed, but it would still be a contribution to the community. You're right, of course, and really I'd love to see the code too. I'd just hate to see something like this take mindshare from the other Perl MVC frameworks just because it's got a trendy sounding name[1] :-) Dave... [1] IIRC, Randal Schwartz has jokingly considered renaming his CGI::Prototype system to Perl on Planks. - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On 03/12/2007, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well this only runs the tiniest part of the BBC site. Like most of the myriad clever pieces of code at the BBC :-) Agreed, but it would still be a contribution to the community. -- Noah Slater http://www.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/
Re: [backstage] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Monday 03 December 2007 10:38:37 Noah Slater wrote: I was excited to read about the Perl on Rails framework you have developed internally: I was pretty pleased to see this mentioned too, though I was rather surprised to see it mentioned without any comment on whether it'll be released as open source or not. That said, having been through the process of getting something released as open source, I know that it can be non-trivial at times - in Kamaelia's case it took 9 months for me to get authorisation for release as open source, even though that was the intent all along from day 1. The arguments which people accept as valid tend to focus on pragmatic arguments. (the arguments around free software tend to focus around the freedoms promoted by the FSF, rather than pragmatics afterall.) Does anyone know more about this or the BBC's intentions? I know some people from AMi lurk on the list and occasionally post, so presumably they'll say something when they can. Demanding people use the phrase free software rather than open source, however, actually makes life harder for release in my experience, not easier (not everyone agrees on the definitions of freedom and rights used afterall). Also, if it is released, it'd be nice if a license was chosen suitable for the eco system it sits in (either looking at other BBC projects or using the same licensing as CPAN). I've spoken at Linux World in the past about what arguments and reasons that *do* work though, which I wrote up on my blog here: http://yeoldeclue.com/cgi-bin/blog/blog.cgi?rm=viewpostnodeid=1162045468 Michael. -- http://yeoldeclue.com/blog http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home - 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] Please release Perl on Rails as Free Software
On Monday 03 December 2007 23:37:08 Noah Slater wrote: I wasn't aware that I had demanded anything from anyone. Probably the wrong word, my apologies. I'm naff with words, often. Michael. - 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/
