* 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
Dear Anasuya,
thank you for your mail and the very good points you are raising in it. I
would like to address one point in particular, my idea of reworking the FDC
process at the Wikimedia Conference in April.
My intention is not to hijack the timetable of the FDC, or to circumvent
established
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 01/16/2014 05:02 PM, Mark wrote:
These confounds might, in the end, not account for much after all. But I
have been looking and haven't found even an attempt to *really*
substantiate claims that the number of actual encyclopedia editors has
declined, versus just superficial quantitative
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
Hello, everyone.
==TL;DR==
I am pleased to announce that we have completed the transition of the
Foundation's contractor-based efforts in Brazil to a 10-month ~$500k
partnership grant to a Brazilian non-profit named Ação Educativa.
==Details==
As announced in the Narrowing Focus plan approved
Here are some charts which breakdown edits into several categories, reverts are
counted separately. Of course edits is not editors, but it could be indicative
of changed behavior patterns/policies. In the ongoing reassesment of metric
definitions one thing discussed is whether we should count
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
While I believe the FDC process by now is well understood and
communicated, I feel the understanding of the actual group, FDC and
the deliberation we perform is less well understood (and communicated)
And if WMDE feedback will be elaborated upon, I think it will be of
value understanding FDC
36 matches
Mail list logo
