[Sussex] Heres a Question. not linux but open source related.

[nik butler]

> If you've signed a contract detailing exactly what is and isn't a 
> function of the product, then I don't think it matters - as long as the 
> TV section is working, it is 'fit for purpose'.
Except. They advertise a service and features as part of the package. So 
its back to AdvertisingStandards. IIRC Ive not signed anything with SKY 
they just took a phone order for the SKY+ Upgrade.
> 
> I'm guessing if Sky got taken to court though, they'd lose - if it 
> weren't for the fact they Mr. Murdock has more money than [probably] any 
> of us on this list ;)
Actually im trying to get Sky to publish a service status page , similar 
to ISP pages in order to help inform end users. Tnen im trying to get 
them to refund the additional £10 i pay a month for SKY+ which is sold 
as Pause, Rewind and Record.

> 
>>>
>>>> 2] Should Sky realease the code ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Would people know what to do with it if they did?
>>
>> no ... but if that statement is true why bother with any open source ?
> 
> Good answer :)
> 
> I'm not sure of the hardware specs of any of the Sky boxes, but I would 
> imagine people have looked at hacking them (esp. the Sky+ boxes) and 
> found it too difficult. Why not just get a TiVo? :)
Hmmm i think your thinking of reasons for releasing the code which are 
different to my reasons for releasing the code. Im not suggesting they 
release hardware documentation . just the raw code. dont LinkSys and 
Netgear do this and yet they dont fully document howto build their 
routers and base stations ?

Likewise Sky( or their subsiduary ) could release the code. Theres a 
fair chance a developer might be interested enough to inspect it and 
spot a potential issue ?

The current code obscurity is reducing the chance of someone locating 
and fixing an issue is it not ?

Nik Butler