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 a culture change. Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, "unwittingly shifting our cherished values for the worse." I voted to go with MP4 but my skepticism is high -- I'm still not satisfied we have deciphered all the legal aspects to our satisfaction: - Confusing consumer electronics MPEG-4 AT&T license for "personal and non-commercial activity" as brought up by User:Geni - Secret non-public licenses WMF would need to purchase, and the community wouldn't understand - What happens after 2016 when the secret license fees could arbitrarily rise? - What happens with CC-BY-SA MPEG-4 content downloaded from Commons if it's used in a commercial setting? Have we sprung a surprise gotcha on creators of derivative works? These are not easy, but I'd like to explore them, cautiously, even for a limited trial. -Andrew On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:41 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 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 principles of what we do. As > such > >> it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major > >> change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a > question > >> about format support. > > > As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a non-free climate for > our > > video, it's unfair to use "backdoor" to characterize intent of either > > community members or WMF employees in this area. > > > I think it's quite fair to note, loudly and often, that *functionally* > it creates a backdoor for nonfree content. > > This is a major, major change, being posited as allowing a format. > > Furthermore, this has been discussed before, and the proponents *are > fully aware* that it is a major, major change that they are positing > as allowing a format. > > So claiming that it's "assuming bad faith" to notice this and say so > comes across as disingenuous. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
