CyberTech Rambler

March 5, 2010

BBC’s has its own definition of open source?

Filed under: Uncategorized — ctrambler @ 6:12 pm

Either BBC has a convoluted idea what ‘open source’ means when it comes to media or my understanding of ‘open source’ in software/content does not apply to medias. As a result, I am totally confused by the BBC’s blog post that aims to clarify the iPlayer issue.

I won’t call WMV, H.264, 3GP, MPEG open source format and a link to Wikipedia’s definition of Open Source doesn’t make them open source.  Moreover, I cannot see how using SSL, RTMP, RTSP, HTTP, means one’s content delivery method is open source. If I use the definition in the article, Windows is an open source product because it uses components licensed to it under BSD license.

Why is BBC adding to the confusion of open source and BBC content? Just come out and say we use open source product but our content are not subjected to the open soruce requirement. Finally, we want to control the player you can use to view our content.

BBC is free to police its content,  and I accept and expect any third party applications who wants to consume BBC’s content to follow reasonable restrictions, such as deleting program after 30 days. However, simply making content available in open (source) format does not make you quality as open source, especially if you want to control which players you want people to use.

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. I don’t understand why the BBC is wasting license payers money on providing player applications at all. The content is compelling enough that if they just provided the data in an open standard, easy to access format, with a nice API, independent developers would very quickly create amazing and innovative player applications, with features the BBC couldn’t hope to match for every platform under the sun. Creating a player and then going to amazing effort to stop other people from doing the work for them for free is simply stupid.

    Far from “Inspiring knowledge, music and culture”, it’s just another way to stamp ‘no user-servicable parts inside’ all over the content we have paid for. It contributes to the dilapidation of society, it puts blocks in the way of anyone who wants to get involved. Its historically wrong, it’s economically wrong, it’s morally wrong, it’s shortsighted and miserable.

    Comment by kybernetikos — March 7, 2010 @ 12:44 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: