Michael Dale wrote:
> hmm.. it will be a one-two click install directly from the upload page.
> (if the user is using Firefox). Then it works exactly the same as the
> existing upload interface only it transcodes the video as it uploads
>
> Yea it would be good to support both; and yes we sh
Yes, but you also said:
"The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered
material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was
being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no
matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered
format version."
I'm quite sure that the net
Brian wrote:
> How is that different from:
> "[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we
> should embrace [...]"
>
>
You forgot the bit about liberating it.
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Brian wrote:
>>
How is that different from:
"[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we
should embrace [...]"
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
> > the wrong chor
Brian wrote:
> Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
> the wrong chord with you?
>
I think it is the " we should accept free content in any format."
bit. ;-)
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Brian wrote:
Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
the wrong chord with you?
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
> > content encoded in a free format we s
Brian wrote:
> I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
> content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any
> format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff and
> the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not
I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any
format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff and
the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say majority),
though
Tim Starling wrote:
>
> Some people in the community take the view that supporting proprietary
> standards, as an option alongside free standards, weakens the ability
> of the free standards to compete for mindshare and client support, and
> thus that it shouldn't be done. We would have to have tha
hmm.. it will be a one-two click install directly from the upload page.
(if the user is using Firefox). Then it works exactly the same as the
existing upload interface only it transcodes the video as it uploads
Yea it would be good to support both; and yes we should simplify upload
work-flo
Firefogg is not a very usable solution for most users. It requires far too
much sophistication. Users should be able to just upload video that they
know is under a free license and then everything else happens on the
backend.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Michael Dale wrote:
> We have done a g
We have done a good amount of work with archive.org to ensure that their
archive is interpretable. I know from the present vantage point it does
not seem helpful to have media on archive.org... but as features like
the add_media_wizard get deployed it will make a lot more sense why it
does not
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 16:06, Tim Starling wrote:
>> As a technical sidenote, it should be mentioned that recoding a lossy
>> format to another lossy format results _always_ a worse quality output
>> than the source lossy format. The amount of quality loss depends on
>> countless factors and usuall
Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 17:26, David Gerard wrote:
>> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
>> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
>> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis.
>
> As a technical sidenote, it should be mentioned
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 14:54, David Gerard wrote:
> Well, yeah. But until cameras or phones start recording Ogg Theora
> natively, we're likely stuck with this.
As another tidbit, I have a music player ("mp3 player") which records
and plays ogg (not Theora though). :-)
But you're right, most user
2009/6/8 Peter Gervai :
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 17:26, David Gerard wrote:
>> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
>> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
>> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis.
> As a technical sidenote, it should be mentio
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 17:26, David Gerard wrote:
> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis.
As a technical sidenote, it should be mentioned that recoding a lossy
format
[cc'd back to wikitech-l]
2009/6/8 Tim Starling :
> It's been discussed since OggHandler was invented in 2007, and I've
> always been in favour of it. But the code hasn't materialised, despite
> a Google Summer of Code project come and gone that was meant to
> implement a transcoding queue. The t
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis. It would greatly add to how much stuff we
> get, as it would save the user
David Gerard wrote:
> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis. It would greatly add to how much stuff we
> get, as it would save the user the trouble of re-encoding, or
>
2009/6/7 Mark (Markie) :
> Archive.org do this and I know the tech team at least have previously had
> meetings/discussions with them.
Archive.org is of course a charity too. Does anyone know the
arrangement allowing them to do this?
- d.
___
founda
Archive.org do this and I know the tech team at least have previously had
meetings/discussions with them.
Regards
Mark
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> We should do this (reencode all major formats to ogg). It would
> absolutely make more educational material available
We should do this (reencode all major formats to ogg). It would
absolutely make more educational material available to commons.
We can make the service available at a reasonable rate now without
worrying about what happens when thousands of uploaders use it every
day, and deal with issues as the
2009/6/7 Robert Rohde :
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> Patent encumbered formats often have licensing fees when you perform
>> encoding / decoding at commercial scale. For example, the MPEG
>> licensing association expects a fee from anyone distributing more than
>> 100
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
>> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
>> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis. It would greatly
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis. It would greatly add to how much stuff we
> get, as it would save the user
2009/6/7 Brian :
> I think there are two issues for a proprietary -> non-proprietary converter:
> 1. The conversion software itself must be FLOSS.
> 2. The format being converted must have an open specification (Flash being a
> good example of one that might be allowed to be converted).
The firs
How many people at WMF consider their opinion's to be "official" ? :)
I think there are two issues for a proprietary -> non-proprietary converter:
1. The conversion software itself must be FLOSS.
2. The format being converted must have an open specification (Flash being a
good example of one that
2009/6/7 Platonides :
> David Gerard wrote:
> Isn't Firefogg good enough? That's the solution being developed.
Installing software is an extra step for the user, therefore bad.
>> ** though I fully expect people will now do so anyway
> IANAL but
See, told you!
Does anyone have an informed,
David Gerard wrote:
> It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
> allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
> as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis. It would greatly add to how much stuff we
> get, as it would save the user the trouble of re-encoding, or
>
It would be a simple matter of programming to have something that
allows upload of encumbered video and audio formats and re-encode them
as Ogg Theora or Ogg Vorbis. It would greatly add to how much stuff we
get, as it would save the user the trouble of re-encoding, or
installing Firefogg, or whate
31 matches
Mail list logo
