File format policy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

File format policy

Erik Moeller-2
I've been asked to bring this up here as a result of the discussion on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Storm.ogg

where a video was nominated for featured status, but several people
objected because they could not play Ogg Theora. We currently do not
allow other video formats.

I would suggest implementing the following policy on all Wikimedia wikis:

"It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3 or
the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."

Thoughts, comments, objections? Ideally, the conversion could be done
automatically, but a soft policy might do the trick for now.

Thanks,

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

Kim Bruning
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 10:35:48AM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
> "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats ...

No. Do not encourage.

--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikitech-l] File format policy

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
On 2/12/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've been asked to bring this up here as a result of the discussion on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Storm.ogg
>
> where a video was nominated for featured status, but several people
> objected because they could not play Ogg Theora. We currently do not
> allow other video formats.
>
> I would suggest implementing the following policy on all Wikimedia wikis:
>
> "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3 or
> the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
> format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
> patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."
>
> Thoughts, comments, objections? Ideally, the conversion could be done
> automatically, but a soft policy might do the trick for now.

I think that is a *terrible* idea, and I also believe that you're not
telling the complete story about the complaints about this video: The
uploader was trying to be helpful and put a note about using
RealPlayer on the image description page (rather than the more
carefully thought out text from our media help page).  Most of the
objections were to real player, it seems that the Windows version is
perceived as carrying malware. Once it was pointed out that the video
did not require real player and that it was no different from other
videos the objections were mostly removed.

We already have had enough problems with Windows executibles being
renamed .ogg and uploaded, we really shouldn't make it worse by
actually permitting them.

So how long until the suggestion that our article text be distrubted
in encrypted dupliation locked ebook format?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] File format policy

Erik Moeller-2
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Gregory Maxwell:
> I think that is a *terrible* idea, and I also believe that you're not
> telling the complete story about the complaints about this video: The
> uploader was trying to be helpful and put a note about using
> RealPlayer on the image description page (rather than the more
> carefully thought out text from our media help page).  Most of the
> objections were to real player, it seems that the Windows version is
> perceived as carrying malware. Once it was pointed out that the video
> did not require real player and that it was no different from other
> videos the objections were mostly removed.

Yes, there were misunderstandings -- that doesn't change the facts: that
Windows does not support Ogg Theora natively, that Theora in particular
is Alpha software, that we've had many reports of problems with playback
of both Theora and Vorbis, and that I've been specifically asked by one
of the concerned users to bring this up. I'm a huge supporter of free
formats -- I bought an iRiver a while ago only because it supports
Vorbis, and I exclusively encode audio files in this format -- but we do
have to keep usability in mind.

Many PC users who access Wikipedia will not be able to follow complex
instructions to set up new video or audio codecs. When it comes down to
it, the question is whether some people will be able to view our content
or not. A dual format policy strikes me as a reasonable compromise.

> We already have had enough problems with Windows executibles being
> renamed .ogg and uploaded, we really shouldn't make it worse by
> actually permitting them.

I don't understand - what does my suggestion have to do with Windows
executables?

> So how long until the suggestion that our article text be distrubted
> in encrypted dupliation locked ebook format?

Neither MP3 nor MPEG-4 necessarily use DRM, and of course we wouldn't
use or allow DRM for these formats, so I fail to see the slippery slope.
We're talking about supporting the most widely used file formats for
audio and video compression. That does not strike me as a radical blow
against freedom.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

Walter Vermeir
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Erik Moeller schreef:
[cut]
> Thoughts, comments, objections? Ideally, the conversion could be done
> automatically, but a soft policy might do the trick for now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Erik

Not a good idea. Yes, Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora are not out of the box
supported by Windows. So what? The only need to install the codec

http://www.illiminable.com/ogg/ and the can play Theora and Vorbis whit
there Windows Media Player.

The problem seems to me not the format but the way the video in included
in the article. Just look at it.;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storm&oldid=38618501

How can the know what to do with that?

1) it is a link to the description page, not the file, confusing to the
visitor
2) the sentence says it is video, the hyperlink says it is a image
3) there is now explanation that the video is in Ogg Theora and how you
can make it work

The problem is not Ogg Theora but how it is used.

On the Dutch Wikipedia this template is used for Ogg Theora files;

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sjablonen_voor_gebruikersboodschappen#Media-sjablonen

(the last one)

1) icon to indicate it is video
2) direct link to the file
3) question mark hyperlink to help page
4) + to the discription page

The use of Ogg vorbis/Theora makes it more difficult for visitors to
access the stuff. But it is not more difficult the users who need to
install RealPlayer or Quicktime on there new computer.

Also because Wikipedia is becoming so big and because we are using Ogg
Vorbis and Theora Wikipedia is making them more main stream.

Greetings,
Walter

--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] File format policy

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
On 2/12/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, there were misunderstandings -- that doesn't change the facts: that
> Windows does not support Ogg Theora natively

Our media help page provides a half dozen players with Theora support.

Windows also does not support SVG natively, IE renders PNG with
transparency wrong (at least I think it still does). There was also a
time when Windows included no support for MP3. Windows 2000 didn't
ship with an MPEG4 codec, and I don't think that XP does either
(although it will happily download one).

A huge amount of streaming video on the Web requires codec downloads,
but Windows Media player will autodownload most of them, although it
will not autodownload theora this is why the en vogue video glurge
sites use flash based players.

If you want mostly painless universial support for Windows users, what
you should be arguing for is a java Wikipedia player (which is
certantly possible).

> that Theora in particular
> is Alpha software,

And the mediawiki code that Wikipedia usually runs is labeled 'beta'.
Can you point out any discussion about bugs in Theora?

The code is quite sold and has been for a long time.

> that we've had many reports of problems with playback
> of both Theora and Vorbis,

To where?  They aren't arriving in mass in OTRS.

> and that I've been specifically asked by one
> of the concerned users to bring this up.

It might have been more useful to begin the discussion on the media
help talk page.

> I'm a huge supporter of free
> formats -- I bought an iRiver a while ago only because it supports
> Vorbis, and I exclusively encode audio files in this format -- but we do
> have to keep usability in mind.
>
> Many PC users who access Wikipedia will not be able to follow complex
> instructions to set up new video or audio codecs. When it comes down to
> it, the question is whether some people will be able to view our content
> or not. A dual format policy strikes me as a reasonable compromise.

If our instructions are too complex then they should be improved. I
think they are pretty easy as is: most of the software is a single
click to install and then both Theora and Vorbis just work when you
click on them.

We haven't even managed to get all of the mp3 files off of english
Wikipedia yet and they've been forbidden for a long time now, so I
can't see how your proposed change would accomplish anything except
forcing our users to use patent encumbered formats.

Also, as the single largest uploader of original music recordings
(although it's still a pretty limited number because the annoyance of
copyright issues on music is keeping me from uploading hundreds of
tracks), I'd like to also voice another objection: I strongly oppose
the use of the content I've created to promote patent encumbered
formats.

> > We already have had enough problems with Windows executibles being
> > renamed .ogg and uploaded, we really shouldn't make it worse by
> > actually permitting them.
>
> I don't understand - what does my suggestion have to do with Windows
> executables?

The RIFF wrapper used for most of the microsoft formats is a
multiformat wrapper (Just like OGG) and can happily be coerced into
containing executable code (unlike OGG).

> > So how long until the suggestion that our article text be distrubted
> > in encrypted dupliation locked ebook format?
>
> Neither MP3 nor MPEG-4 necessarily use DRM, and of course we wouldn't
> use or allow DRM for these formats, so I fail to see the slippery slope.
> We're talking about supporting the most widely used file formats for
> audio and video compression. That does not strike me as a radical blow
> against freedom.

Both are only available under obnoxious patent licenses which claim to
demand fees per download, and otherwise control the creators,
distributors, and users of the content.
(http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/emd.html, for example)

'Mode widely used' is a broken argument by itself. If we were going
for most widely used, for revision controlled text we'd be using
Microsoft Word rather than Wikitext.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: File format policy

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Walter Vermeir
On 2/12/06, Walter Vermeir <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> The problem seems to me not the format but the way the video in included
> in the article. Just look at it.;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storm&oldid=38618501
> How can the know what to do with that?

Oh wow, just more evidence that people aren't doing their homework
before crying that the sky if falling over our use of Theora.  We have
a proper video template (and one for audio as well) on enwiki which
provides instruction and an attractive image... but it looks like the
template was not used on that article for some reason.

I put the template in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Storm&oldid=39328671
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

Mark
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Erik Moeller wrote:

> "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3
> or the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
> format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
> patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."

I don't see any reason not to allow that.  The point of the "no
patent-encumbered formats" restriction, as far as I understand it, is to
keep all our content available in fully free formats for both viewing
and editing.  *Also* providing a video in MPEG-4 doesn't make the Theora
version any less free or available.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

Gregory Maxwell
On 2/12/06, Delirium <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't see any reason not to allow that.  The point of the "no
> patent-encumbered formats" restriction, as far as I understand it, is to
> keep all our content available in fully free formats for both viewing
> and editing.  *Also* providing a video in MPEG-4 doesn't make the Theora
> version any less free or available.

But unless we were to generate the proprietary formats with server
side transcoding there would be no way to ensure that the open codec
formats were always available and the preferred form for editing...
and I'm pretty confident that the use of non-free software for the
Wikipedia backend is still out of the question.

That said, I don't know that I agree with your argument that providing
an mpeg-4 version doesn't make the the free version less available: So
long as the mpeg-4 format is more widely supported (and I don't know
that it really is by that wide a margin, one thing I've learned is
that peoples guesses are often wrong... but if it's not the discussion
is moot) then people will preferentially transfer and share in that
format.  Just because Wikipedia is carrying both formats doesn't mean
the downstream will do so...  Sure, downstream can always transcode
themselves, but that still leaves us in a position to decide
downstream must do less work to distribute in the freedom deprived
formats, or more work if they wish to offer those formats.

I don't feel confident that it would be legal to distribute typical
copyleft licensed content in an unfree format... As I expressed
previously, I'm pretty unhappy about the idea the content I created
being distributed in these formats.

Even if we ignore all the other issues, we're still left with the fact
that the Wikimedia foundation's intended uses almost certainly fall
under the criteria that the the patent holders of these formats
believe they are entitled to extract per-download fees on (especially
in the case of mpeg4).  Now, the question of do they really have a leg
to stand on is a separate matter, but can count on a dispute being
costly either way... We can already see how this is panning out in the
industry: Everyone of substantial size pays the protection fee.

Generally the enforcement (and licensing costs) of this stuff is tuned
to keep the economics in favor of supporting the proprietary formats
and avoiding the push to free formats. If the licensors were to make
too much of a nuisance of themselves, the public would take the one
time change out cost to switch entirely to free formats and the
licensors would lose out massively while the public would benefit
greatly so the situation remains carefully controlled.

The existence of Vorbis itself demonstrates this dynamic: the not
insubstantial cost to create Vorbis was primarily covered by an
internet content distribution house who never actually switched to it.
The mere existence of a viable free alternative changed the balance
away from Thompson enough to easily justify the cost.

The preservation of these costly (to society) proprietary formats is
possible because the primary decision makers in this grand game are
obligated to maximize profits above all other motives, this provides a
knob hook for the patent holders to tweak to keep the situation under
their control.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is chartered to provide Free content.
Our duty, ultimately, it to maximize long term public good even at the
expense of short term popularity or convenience (and it isn't at all
clear that we are even giving up anything there with the decision to
only use free formats). There is, quite frankly, no good reason for us
to feel compelled by the limited advantages of the proprietary
formats... but the existence or lack of advantages shouldn't be our
motivator in this decision, the utter incompatibility of proprietary
and encumbered  with our fundamental goals should.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

Robert S. Horning
In reply to this post by Mark
Delirium wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3
>> or the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
>> format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
>> patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."
>
>
> I don't see any reason not to allow that.  The point of the "no
> patent-encumbered formats" restriction, as far as I understand it, is
> to keep all our content available in fully free formats for both
> viewing and editing.  *Also* providing a video in MPEG-4 doesn't make
> the Theora version any less free or available.
>
> -Mark
>
It is more than that.  Most of the patent encumbering file formats,
notably GIF and JPEG, but MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 are suffering from this as
well (as well as the MPEG audio codec layer 3 spec even in MPEG-1, aka
MP3) all require royalty payments by the file hosting service.  That
means the Wikimedia Foundation is directly liable for this royalty
payment, and it is simply being responsible by not permitting file
uploads in these formats.  The GIF patents have expired in the USA, but
it still has some sticky issues in other countries.  Less now than it
was even a year ago, but it can still cause grief if we are not careful.
 This is royalties for simply distributing files in these formats, not
necessarily the creation or playback of data in these formats, which is
a whole other issue.

As far as I know, there are really only two different "video" file
formats that are without patent encumberance that wouldn't require
royalty payments for data distribution:  Ogg Theora and MNG (derived
from the PNG spec).  MNG is mostly a glorified replacement for animated
GIFs, so that may not really count either unless you use timing chunks
and non-standard audio inclusion.  That is the reason for the
restrictions on the file formats of what you can upload to a place like
Commons, and a reason to encourage people to purchase software or video
devices that can use the Theora file format.

--
Robert Scott Horning



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

xkernigh
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-2
Erik Moeller wrote:

> "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3 or
> the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
> format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
> patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."

The problem is, someone would need to check that each MPEG file had a
matching Ogg version. To do this, you need to play the MPEG file...

Some users complain that they can play MPEG but not Theora. I am in the
opposite situation. I installed MPlayer a few minutes ago to play
Storm.ogg, so I can play Ogg Theora, but I cannot play MPEG-4 because I
live in the United States but have not paid license royalties. I run
OpenBSD, so I also cannot obtain a licensed MPEG-4 player such as
RealPlayer, QuickTime, or Windows Media Player.

Suppose some user wants to check if the Storm.mp4 that someone uploaded is
the same as Storm.ogg. If this user has QuickTime, or lives in the European
Union, that might be easy. If I did the check, I would go to a different
computer with Mac OS X and QuickTime, which is an inconvenience for me, but
not impossible.

-- [[Wikibooks:en:User:Kernigh]], and there is almost no audio or video at
   en.Wikibooks, but I sometimes find it at Commons and en.Wikipedia


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: File format policy

Ilya Haykinson
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > "It is allowed to upload files in patent-encumbered formats like MP3 or
> > the MPEG-4 codecs only provided that a version in a non-encumbered
> > format is also uploaded. Files which are only provided in
> > patent-encumbered formats should be deleted."

I don't see this as an openness-of-content issue at all; I see it as a
technological problem.  Our organizational desire is to provide open
access to data; to some degree this means using open,
patent-unencumbered formats such that patent restrictions will not be
an obstacle to viewing our content.

On the other hand, a large part of our organizational desire is to
actually provide the data.  Currently our video content is accessible
to a very small subset of users; just like we present our
database-persisted data using XHTML that is understood by web
browsers, we need to present video data in some format that's
understandable by most computers out there.

Without compromising our stance, we could insist on all uploads to be
open formats (like .ogg) but transcode to common viewable formats as
an option for viewers who don't have OGG players. I don't see how that
would be in conflict with our core mission.

-ilya haykinson
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] File format policy

Ed S. Peschko
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:51:56AM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 2/12/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Yes, there were misunderstandings -- that doesn't change the facts: that
> > Windows does not support Ogg Theora natively
>
> Our media help page provides a half dozen players with Theora support.

>
> Windows also does not support SVG natively, IE renders PNG with
> transparency wrong (at least I think it still does). There was also a
> time when Windows included no support for MP3. Windows 2000 didn't
> ship with an MPEG4 codec, and I don't think that XP does either
> (although it will happily download one).
>
> A huge amount of streaming video on the Web requires codec downloads,
> but Windows Media player will autodownload most of them, although it
> will not autodownload theora this is why the en vogue video glurge
> sites use flash based players.
>
> If you want mostly painless universial support for Windows users, what
> you should be arguing for is a java Wikipedia player (which is
> certantly possible).

I just wanted to throw in my two cents here - why don't you see if you can't
google to provide their video player?

It works great here, where quicktime, real, and microsoft video fail
due to proxying issues. It also is quite easy on bandwidth use.

Ed
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: File format policy

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>Now, the question of do they really have a leg
>to stand on is a separate matter, but can count on a dispute being
>costly either way... We can already see how this is panning out in the
>industry: Everyone of substantial size pays the protection fee.
>
"Protection fee" is an interesting choice of terminology.

>Generally the enforcement (and licensing costs) of this stuff is tuned
>to keep the economics in favor of supporting the proprietary formats
>and avoiding the push to free formats. If the licensors were to make
>too much of a nuisance of themselves, the public would take the one
>time change out cost to switch entirely to free formats and the
>licensors would lose out massively while the public would benefit
>greatly so the situation remains carefully controlled.
>
The irony is that if the licensors make too much of a fuss it could kill
their cash cow.  The one thing that supporters of free software and
materials can't afford to spend a lot of money on is PR and
advertising.  As more and more good free alternatives become available,
the proprietary industry's strongest argument (software reliability)
becomes less credible.  When they screw up their publicity by being too
aggressive against the little guy it only drives the customers toward
the free alternative.

>The preservation of these costly (to society) proprietary formats is
>possible because the primary decision makers in this grand game are
>obligated to maximize profits above all other motives, this provides a
>knob hook for the patent holders to tweak to keep the situation under
>their control.
>
Those managers of proprietary enterprises who attack every little
violation of the company's rights as a threat to the bottom line can
easily find that such actions are counterproductive.  It's a bit like
industry's counterpart to our wiki-lawyers. :-)

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: File format policy

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Ilya Haykinson
On 2/13/06, Ilya Haykinson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't see this as an openness-of-content issue at all; I see it as a
> technological problem.  Our organizational desire is to provide open
> access to data; to some degree this means using open,
> patent-unencumbered formats such that patent restrictions will not be
> an obstacle to viewing our content.
>
> On the other hand, a large part of our organizational desire is to
> actually provide the data.  Currently our video content is accessible
> to a very small subset of users; just like we present our
> database-persisted data using XHTML that is understood by web
> browsers, we need to present video data in some format that's
> understandable by most computers out there.
>
> Without compromising our stance, we could insist on all uploads to be
> open formats (like .ogg) but transcode to common viewable formats as
> an option for viewers who don't have OGG players. I don't see how that
> would be in conflict with our core mission.

I don't see how transcoding to a proprietary format would be much
different than offering up our text alternative non-free license.

I also see the assertion made multiple times that the number of users
who can view this content is greatly diminished... but I've yet to see
this substantiated with data.  If you count users who must install a
codec as unable, then you must also realize that the proposed
alternative proprietary formats are also not installed by default on a
great many (a majority?) of computers.

The complexity of getting working players to users is high enough that
a great many video sites such as video.google.com and youtube are
using flash and java based players.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: File format policy

Ilya Haykinson
On 2/13/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I also see the assertion made multiple times that the number of users
> who can view this content is greatly diminished... but I've yet to see
> this substantiated with data.  If you count users who must install a
> codec as unable, then you must also realize that the proposed
> alternative proprietary formats are also not installed by default on a
> great many (a majority?) of computers.

My overall point is that our mission contains the need to maintain
content in an open format, so that the knowledge we accumulate is
accessible in the present and future to those unable or unwilling to
pay for this collection of knowledge, and to not be beholden to the
whims of patentholders.

However, the most important mission is to provide content.  Despite
your suggestion otherwise, I hold that the 98% of the web browsers
that have flash, and the 80%+ people who run Windows, are actually
somewhat likely to view a video whereas the (definitely more than) 90%
of the people who have computers with no Theora codec are not.

In keeping with our primary mission to provide the knowledge, I think
we need to be flexible and accepting of a compromise of accumulating
knowledge in an open format but providing it in such ways as are
actually likely to be useful to people, now.

-ilya
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: File format policy

Gregory Maxwell
On 2/13/06, Ilya Haykinson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/13/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I also see the assertion made multiple times that the number of users
> > who can view this content is greatly diminished... but I've yet to see
> > this substantiated with data.  If you count users who must install a
> > codec as unable, then you must also realize that the proposed
> > alternative proprietary formats are also not installed by default on a
> > great many (a majority?) of computers.
>
> My overall point is that our mission contains the need to maintain
> content in an open format, so that the knowledge we accumulate is
> accessible in the present and future to those unable or unwilling to
> pay for this collection of knowledge, and to not be beholden to the
> whims of patentholders.

How would this be any different than offering to sell the text under a
non-copyleft license?  Surely there are some additional avenues of
distribution which could be better exploited if only we dropped that
pesky copyleft...

> However, the most important mission is to provide content.  Despite
> your suggestion otherwise, I hold that the 98% of the web browsers
> that have flash, and the 80%+ people who run Windows, are actually
> somewhat likely to view a video whereas the (definitely more than) 90%
> of the people who have computers with no Theora codec are not.

How did 98% of web browsers get flash? I'm fairly confident that they
did not ship with it, windows doesn't. In most cases I'm aware of,
flash was installed via the flash website by the user. I'd suspect
that in many of those cases flash was installed in order to view a
website with far less popularity than Wikipedia.

> In keeping with our primary mission to provide the knowledge, I think
> we need to be flexible and accepting of a compromise of accumulating
> knowledge in an open format but providing it in such ways as are
> actually likely to be useful to people, now.

Our primary mission is not just to provide content, it is to provide
free content. The unfree encyclopedia has already been done several
times over and many of them are better *encyclopedias* than what we
have today.  Some of them even make substantial amounts of content
available at no cost via the internet.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] File format policy

Brion Vibber
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> A huge amount of streaming video on the Web requires codec downloads,
> but Windows Media player will autodownload most of them, although it
> will not autodownload theora this is why the en vogue video glurge
> sites use flash based players.
>
> If you want mostly painless universial support for Windows users, what
> you should be arguing for is a java Wikipedia player (which is
> certantly possible).

Fluendo's got a GPL'd Java applet player that can play streaming Ogg Vorbis and
Theora. I've tossed up a quick test page using a random short video clip I
grabbed off of Commons:

http://test.leuksman.com/video/

Seems to work for me in:
* Mac OS X 10.4: Safari 2
* Mac OS X 10.4: Firefox 1.5
* Windows XP SP2: IE 7
* Windows XP SP2: Firefox 1.5

I haven't tested other systems extensively but would like to see some
compatibility feedback.

NullC reports it works with gcjwebplugin on Linux/Firefox, though perhaps slowly.

Unfortunately the market penetration of Java on Windows and Linux isn't what it
was at the peak of the browser wars; Microsoft no longer seems to bundle Java
and many Linux distributions still aren't shipping a Java plugin. So it may
require some people to separately download and install Java.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] File format policy

Alfio Puglisi
Works for me. Windows 2000 SP4, Firefox 1.5

Alfio
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] File format policy

Finne Boonen-2
In reply to this post by Brion Vibber
On 2/14/06, Brion Vibber <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > A huge amount of streaming video on the Web requires codec downloads,
> > but Windows Media player will autodownload most of them, although it
> > will not autodownload theora this is why the en vogue video glurge
> > sites use flash based players.
> >
> > If you want mostly painless universial support for Windows users, what
> > you should be arguing for is a java Wikipedia player (which is
> > certantly possible).
>
> Fluendo's got a GPL'd Java applet player that can play streaming Ogg Vorbis and
> Theora. I've tossed up a quick test page using a random short video clip I
> grabbed off of Commons:
>
> http://test.leuksman.com/video/
>
> Seems to work for me in:
> * Mac OS X 10.4: Safari 2
> * Mac OS X 10.4: Firefox 1.5
> * Windows XP SP2: IE 7
> * Windows XP SP2: Firefox 1.5
>
> I haven't tested other systems extensively but would like to see some
> compatibility feedback.
>
> NullC reports it works with gcjwebplugin on Linux/Firefox, though perhaps slowly.
>
> Unfortunately the market penetration of Java on Windows and Linux isn't what it
> was at the peak of the browser wars; Microsoft no longer seems to bundle Java
> and many Linux distributions still aren't shipping a Java plugin. So it may
> require some people to separately download and install Java.
>

Java seems to be popluar for things like onilne banking, so lots of
ppl have it anyways. At least I've never seen it not isntalled on my
parents comps even tho I can't remember that I installed it.

henna
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
12