On 03/11/06, Pete Ryland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They are a business after > all, so the powers that be are likely not to approve spending > resources just to satisfy some "bunch of hippies and their demands". Are they a business? They are publicly funded to provided a service which they are failing to do.
Wasn't the whole purpose of the BBC to provide content for the sections of society that was not covered by the mainstream? By taking the action to explicitly block non Microsoft based systems (some content actually requires ActiveX and thus Windows), are they not violating the spirit of why the BBC was created, if not the legal agreement? I have also seen another couple of threads regarding this on other mailing lists. Including the FSFE-uk list (only just signed up to didn't see it when signed up t other FSFE lists), who are writing an open letter to the BBC about their partnership with Microsoft, still they haven't done anything about the RealPlayer issue, begging the question how effective is the FSFE? Are forces seem to be a little divided and there is few of us as it is, maybe we should unite the people so to speak. The BBC website is used by a lot of people, getting it to play nice with Free Software and Open Source would show that the community can do something worthwhile. And it _should_ be easier than with other broadcasters because they have an obligation to allow access to the license payers, and some license payers use Linux. I like the idea about sending Ubuntu Linux to my MP (even if the poster was joking, not sure). Need to compose a letter to him first. All I need is a good introduction to Linux, Free Software and Open Source for idiots. Still waiting for the BBC to respond to my second complaint, (6 days to go till 10 day target) - Andy -- DRM: Digital Restrictions Management -- learn about the dangers at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
