On 9/29/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we all recognise that there is a problem with access, but I do
not think that the solution to this problem is the use of non-free
formats. The most important reason for this is that I'm not sure we
could be considered to be delivering "free content" if it is delivered
in a patent-laden format.


Why not?  If files are offered in a commonly-playable format, alongside a free unencumbered format, we have the best of both worlds.  We both deliver "free content" as well as deliver content in a format useful to our users.

I think that so long as we insist that the storage of data has to happen in a free format, and that there must always be a way to get the highest quality version of material possible in the same free format, we should have the freedom to offer it in other, less pure but more useful formats.

I guess my main point is that as long as we satisfy the core requirement (free content), our next guidance should be usability and our users in general.  And not some theoretical spread of open formats, in general, usability be damned.  I guarantee you that most users have no clue what a codec is, and no amount of explanation and instruction will get the point across.  A single "play" button in the middle of the screen will.

-ilya haykinson