Robin Schwab wrote:
On 16.09.2010 13:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 September 2010 11:19, Robin Schwabcontact@robinschwab.ch wrote:
Why being so dogmatic? I agree that free software is a must for core components of our project for strategic reasons. However for secondary components such as an image viewer I see no such strategic reasons.
Because content that requires a proprietary viewer is considered problematic. This is why Commons requires free formats.
I'm not talking about allowing content in a proprietary file format. All those panoramics are jpg files. I only propose to put a proprietary software on our servers giving the user an alternative way to see those jpg files.
Whether it's the file format or the viewer, I don't see that much difference and I think the question has pretty much been asked and answered already. Part of the issue is that we're committed not just to freedom of access, but also freedom of reproduction, so that mirrors or downstream users should be able to freely recreate the experience if they wish.
If the Wikimedia Foundation tried to absorb the costs of proprietary software as suggested, there are a couple problems. The first problem is that the foundation can only absorb some, not all, of the social impacts of such a choice, no matter how much it tries to pick up the full logistical and financial costs. The second problem is what else the foundation would start to absorb, in the sense of cultural connections and obligations, as a result of making such a choice.
For reasons such as this, content solutions on our side need to remain free in the fullest sense of the word. People are welcome to try whatever they like downstream or on the client side, and that's the place to work on non-free "solutions" to such problems. After all, there's no problem if someone wants to read Wikipedia using Internet Explorer, either.
--Michael Snow