On 17/01/2014 21:24, Michael Peel wrote:
Doesn’t that break the terms of the CC-BY license, if not legally
then at least ethically? The right to distribute copies is built into
the license, no?
How? If I upload a video to some hosting site and license it CC-BY what
does that have to do with
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
The RFC is non-neutral and unnecessarily complex. With so much
experience of trying these things, along with full time expertise, I
would hope for a more sophisticated approach from in-house WMF teams.
It is actually very complex
On 18 January 2014 13:41, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
The RFC is non-neutral and unnecessarily complex. With so much
experience of trying these things, along with full time expertise, I
would hope for a more sophisticated
On 01/18/2014 10:53 AM, Mark wrote:
A consensus has emerged that MP4 video uploading can be enabled on
Wikimedia Commons without major legal or technical problems (see [here]
for details)
While there are a great deal of interesting philosophical and ethical
questions surrounding this issue,
* 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
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
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
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 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,
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
* Fabrice Florin wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a
proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital
video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch
videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video
Why would we promote patent- and secrecy-encumbered formats when Google has
spent so much on opening WebM?
Also, why does the Multimedia Team care about video when most Wiktionary
headwords don't have uploaded audio exemplars yet?
Where are our priorities?
Le 16/01/2014 12:54, Manuel Schneider a écrit :
The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
material.
We have now a pretty good support of TIFF for pictures and FLAC for
audio streams; but there is
Great post Manuel, and I wholeheartedly agree, including the final
recommendation. I, instead, voted for full MP4 support on the RfC to draw
the center of gravity towards accepting MP4, but I would be happy even with
a partial solution.
Some points:
1. The video project in English Wikipedia is:
James,
This is the first time I've ever heard the phrase Wiktionary headwords in
my life :)
I'm partial, but there's a very strong case that video in Wikipedia has a
large impact and interest level that justifies this much time on it.
-Andrew
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:16 AM, James Salsman
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:
1. The consumer licensing agreement from ATT is scary and weird, and
Geni's first NO vote has set the tone for many to follow.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.orgwrote:
Le 16/01/2014 12:54, Manuel Schneider a écrit :
The reason this idea was dismissed is the core of this RfC: patent
trolling etc. on H.264 codecs etc. which we would need to allow as raw
material.
We have now a
On 16 January 2014 13:37, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
wind up paying
There aren't two principles in conflict here.
Rather, there is a proposed very major shift in mission and method. Right
now, when we say Wikimedia content is free, we mean free to fork, reuse,
use however the viewer sees fit.
We support that objective with freely licensed content stored in free
On 16 January 2014 14:14, 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 (and with the opaque license,
it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
but
Hi,
Todd Allen said:
...
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). We could choose to make that change,
but it is a major change to the founding
On Jan 16, 2014 8:41 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@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
You know I think you're awesome David, so I take your words to heart.
You're right about the magnitude of the decision.
I can see how backdoored was not meant to ascribe a motive or
underhandedness, but to alert the community that we're allowing a practice
we may not completely grasp in terms of
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
So claiming that it's assuming bad faith to notice this and say so
comes across as disingenuous.
That is exactly my intent. I don't mean to imply WMF is acting with malice
here. However, in this instance, a
On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
our cherished values for the worse.
This is about the fourth time this has come around; I hope you can
understand that it's harder to credit unwittingly
David Gerard, 16/01/2014 17:05:
WMF has been very bad at making limited trials that are in fact
limited. (We're been in the limited trial of anons not being able to
create articles on en:wp since 2007, for instance.)
2005 as an experiment, actually.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Lionel Allorge
lionel.allo...@lunerouge.org wrote:
Hi,
On the contrary, we should encourage people to edit their videos with
tutorials and to render the final edit in a free file format.
Agree. As part of Wiki Makes Video, we've done some of this already,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
There aren't two principles in conflict here.
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
On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@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 (and with the opaque license,
it may
On 16 January 2014 16:05, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
our cherished values for the worse.
This is about the fourth time this has come around;
Hoi,
This is a truly divisive issue. For many people the notion that you do not
need anything proprietary is a powerful motivator to participate. Promoting
a stack of software that cannot be taken away because of the whims of a
company or country is an integral part to it.
From my perspective the
On 01/16/2014 01:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I prefer for us to remain on the path where our whole stack of both content
and software is unencumbered.
I'd really hope we're not setting up a false dichotomy in our
discussion; nobody has been argued about supporting MP4 containers in
It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on
this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the
Multimedia team.
That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to happen*.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/2013-14_Goals#Activities
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on
this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the
Multimedia team.
That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to
I read that as we plan to have a discussion, and if that discussion
is positive, go ahead.
Putting something in the schedule in advance of the decision makes
sense - there's no point in having the discussion without planning the
resources to follow through on what you've offered to do!
Andrew.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
This is a truly divisive issue. For many people the notion that you do not
need anything proprietary is a powerful motivator to participate. Promoting
a stack of software that cannot be taken away because
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 and I
think there is an alpha
Well, after reading that, I am a bit uneasy. Has WMF agreed not to move
forward if that discussion does not reach a consensus to do so? At this
point, it looks unlikely that it will.
On Jan 16, 2014 11:37 AM, Chad Horohoe choro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, David
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, after reading that, I am a bit uneasy. Has WMF agreed not to move
forward if that discussion does not reach a consensus to do so? At this
point, it looks unlikely that it will.
The point of the RFC is to figure out
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on
this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the
Multimedia team.
That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to
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 not like there are
Greetings!
The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a
proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital video
standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on
mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It
No.
--
Fajro
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Jan 15, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:
No.
I think you should probably include a reason why you feel this way. A
one-word answer doesn’t leave room for conversation.
---
Brandon Harris, Senior Designer, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge:
Clarification: while LCA would love to accept the compliment (and indeed, both
the l and the ca sides are providing support for this process), it is
Fabrice's initiative, not one of ours.
pb
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:05 PM, Liam Wyatt
69 matches
Mail list logo
