> Considering that the BBC was mainly finances by quasi-public money it's a shame that it was opted for a license with an unnecessary special case (NC).
Unfortunatly this is why it has to be licensed in that way. Having the BBC release code for free to commercial use is often deemed to be a "market distortion", and thus not allowed to happen, as such the lawyers will often err on the side of caution.
Also remember this was 1999, 5 years before Apache License 2.0 was approved.
Unfortunatly this is why it has to be licensed in that way. Having the BBC release code for free to commercial use is often deemed to be a "market distortion", and thus not allowed to happen, as such the lawyers will often err on the side of caution.
Also remember this was 1999, 5 years before Apache License 2.0 was approved.