On 7/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 7/20/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
The addition of the transcoding infrastructure
alone would be a
substantial project with substantial complexity...
IA has already got the infrastructure in place.
That isn't exactly the sort of infrastructure I was thinking of, but
this is an interesting subject:
Indeed, they have a lot of transcoding infrastructure in place... Yet
they don't offer their video content in free formats. They do offer
four or five encumbered formats in many cases, but they seldom offer
free formats at all.
It's certainly not that they haven't been asked to offer unencumbered formats.
I don't think it's wise of you to to hold up IA as example of
something done right here, although I am glad you did because it makes
my argument easier.
You have been advocating parallel distribution in free and non-free
formats, an action which I and others have argued is inconsistent with
our long-term mission social good, but it is an action which is at
least worth discussion. But IA doesn't manage to even do this much.
The practice of providing proprietary formats only, or otherwise
leaving free formats as second-class citizens, is exactly the sort of
negative outcome that someone might use in a strawman argument against
parallel distribution. Except in this case, it's not a strawman --
it's IA's actual behavior.
So, as you pitch using the IA as a way of achieving the future, please
realize that you're showing us a future which doesn't live up to your
claims and which epitomizes some of the fears of those who disagree
with you.