* Tim Starling wrote:
On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
it may not even be possible to tell).
I don't really understand this argument. It's
Hoi,
I am happy for people to upload files when we can convert it to another
format. Given that the issue is around the ability to re-use media files in
the H.264 format, providing these files to our users is exactly the issue
that is being discussed. Consequently it is controversial.
Thanks,
On Jan 16, 2014 11:05 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque
license,
it may not even be possible to
FYI it's against the bylaws of at least 4 chapters (Argentina, Chile,
Uruguay and Venezuela) to promote content in non-free formats.
--
Fajro
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI it's against the bylaws of at least 4 chapters (Argentina, Chile,
Uruguay and Venezuela) to promote content in non-free formats.
Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?
- d.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?
From Wikimedia Argentina bylaws:
*The Association's goals are:*
To actively contribute to
From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
without any transcoding it should be fine (correct me if I'm wrong). We'd
only
On 17 January 2014 15:03, Ted Chien hsiangtai.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
without
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/16 Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com:
As much as I am pushing for MP4 adoption in Wikimedia to help our lagging
video efforts, MPEG-4 patent holders/licensors are not helping their
case:
[snip]
I worry more about
Got your attention? :)
Various mass messages are occasionally sent to village pumps in many
projects - by the Foundation's community liaisons, by researchers, and
others.
Sometimes people bother to put them up for translation, which is wonderful,
but sometimes it is not practical, for example if
Given that allowing mp4 would be an act of commercial expedience at the
expense of core Wikipedia principles, let me make the modest suggestion of
introducing mp4 in concert with a name change to Encarta.
On Jan 16, 2014 5:15 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Great post Manuel, and I
He wasn't assuming bad faith; he was accurately describing the situation
without ascribing intent.
On Jan 16, 2014 7:36 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
There aren't two principles in conflict here.
This
There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/wikimedia-considers-supporting-h-264-to-boost-accessibility-content/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
A pile of press is linked at the top of the talk page.
- d.
On 17 January 2014 16:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
* Andrew Lih wrote:
BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Commercial_use_and_h264
I note that the Wikimedia Foundation does
One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
6.5 million videos that are explicitly educational. Are we sure focusing on
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
6.5
My five cents here would be that how about considering longer time frames
for grants, like 2-3-5 years (I was too tired to understandably explain
this yesterday to Anasuya)
Here in Hungary individuals can offer 1% of their income tax to nonprofit
organizations (these are accounted and transferred
On 17 January 2014 17:12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
Hello, everyone.
I'm writing with information about the Ombudsman Commission (OC), the small
group of volunteers who investigate complaints about violations of the
privacy policy, and in particular concerning the use of CheckUser tools, on
any Wikimedia project for the Board of Trustees.
I
Le 16/01/2014 20:13, geni a écrit :
On 16 January 2014 13:02, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
Dirac, a free codec developed by the BBC, seems to be a good solution.
Do people have some experiences with Dirac?
No. BBC managed to get it working dedicated machines a few years back
Hi David,
We were selling video editing softwares at that time, and that's what I
remebered for the MPEG-4 royalties. But MPEG LA would do the license thing
case by case, maybe my information is not correct now.
I just found that MPEG LA has announced in 2010 that it will not charge
royalties
On 17 January 2014 08:24, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.ilwrote:
Put it inside the following HTML tag:
div lang=en dir=ltr class=mw-content-ltr
Your important notification.
/div
[Snip]
Of course, it's not great to have to remember to write it every time, so if
there is a
Yes, an interesting vision indeed and I like these use cases. Having
read the other thread about the copyright difficulties with video
codecs and I understand this vision is a long way off, but I like this
short intro to keep us all on point about what we would like to see:
ease of use in
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.netwrote:
* Andrew Lih wrote:
BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
enables cc-by uploading and has 4 million videos with a free license, and
6.5
I'm not sure what debate you're referring to. If it's about whether video
belongs in Wikipedia, I don't think it's even in question.
Wikipedia started in 2001 as all text.
It didn't have photos then, we now have photos.
It didn't have audio then, we now have audio.
It didn't have video then, we
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what debate you're referring to. If it's about whether video
belongs in Wikipedia, I don't think it's even in question.
Wikipedia started in 2001 as all text.
It didn't have photos then, we now have photos.
Ah. Well if you're not even buying into the legitimacy of photos on
Commons, I'm not sure there's a way to have a productive discussion about
video.
-Andrew
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Well if you're not even buying into the legitimacy of photos on
Commons, I'm not sure there's a way to have a productive discussion about
video.
-Andrew
No, I think the vast repository of images, properly curated,
This is already in the guidelines:
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Best_practices_for_reaching_out_to_projects_in_multiple_languages
You won't reach all massmessage users on this list.
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[OMG, I actually wrote quite a lot of that page.]
--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014/1/17 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
This is already in the guidelines:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 19:11, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that hasn't come up in the debate is the relative importance of
Wikimedia's approach to video, given the existing video ecosystem. YouTube
enables
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse
I'm not sure this is correct.
There are two different implementations possible.
* Accept MP4 and
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content
will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse
I'm not sure this is
David Gerard wrote:
Given Commons' attitude on even incredibly unlikely copyright risks
... it's just ridiculous to assume such a provision on a format would
be allowed to pass.
I see at least one person has deemed it a snowball-pass after just a
few hours. I find this ... unlikely.
Yes. The current discussion has confused people about the things that are
not very contentious:
* Ingesting and converting out of more formats is good: we should start
ingesting MP4 and converting on the fly. There are no major legal risks to
our doing so.
* We have a tiny video community; even
Hi.
Is there a community consultation period built in to the selection process
for a new Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director? If not, should there be?
In trying to figure out what the selection process may look like, I
re-reviewed some of the relevant FAQs and timelines:
*
38 matches
Mail list logo
