On Jan 18, 2008 3:07 PM, Jay A. Walsh <jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: [snip] Hi Jay, This would appear to be your first post, so welcome to the lists... I understand that you are new here, so you may need the time to collect the background information, but I think that I, and other contributors, need to have a clear explanation as to why the Wikimedia Foundation is calling for volunteer resources for this project when it has failed to call for any resources, or bring any attention at all, to the existing slideshow functionality which our own users have developed. While the JavaScript slideshow software developed by our own users lacks the special effects of Kaltura., it has the advantage of requiring no proprietary software. It also integrates with the existing MediaWiki software in a scalable manner and leverages our revision control technology and user experiences. For most of the Wikimedia projects it can be argued that a simple javascript slideshow is actually a better fit for our needs. I think we also would like to know how the Kaltura product is ever expected to be "100%" free in accordance with our practice of only integrating free tools when it has a fundamental requirement on Adobe Flash, a proprietary format which can not be completely implemented without using patented technologies. I ask this not to be confrontational, but because it is a serious point which I have been asked about which I am unable to answer. One multimedia free software developer said to me about the press release 'it may be slightly more accurate if you replace every instance of "open" with the word "flash" ;)' As a long time contributor to the Wikimedia projects in many capacities, have to say that I found the press release to be misleading and somewhat disingenuous. Unfortunately the released system is far from complete: For example, Mediawiki Integration is achieved by simply embedding material from the Kaltura site. This is very similar to a number of pre-existing youtube extensions. (Such as http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:YouTubeTag). There really isn't much to contribute to such an extension. The player code in svn also contains a number of third part copyrighted components which I am reasonably confident that Kaltura does not have the rights to release under a free license. (I'm sure this is an honest error, but its still worth mentioning) Beyond the Mediawiki extension, which as I said above is little more than a embed shim, they have released some flash code. Unfortunately the flash code can not be built with open tools, so the overwhelming majority of our users couldn't reasonably contribute to that part of the software without undertaking unreasonable costs. I'm disappointed to see that the Wikimedia foundation has yet again missed an effort to use its viability, both internally to the community and externally, to promote pre-existing community driven software initiatives. A pattern of promoting the "prodigal sons" of the proprietary-cum-kinda-free world over out own contributors and developers is a dangerous I am especially disappointed to see Wikimedia promoting a technology which depends on a proprietary format which can not be reimplemented without patent encumbered technology, especially when a substantial portion of the functionality could be provided with standards driven technology already available in the users browsers. In the future I hope the Foundation will first seek community input on technology partnerships: A flash slideshow editor isn't anything anyone here has been asking for, as far as I can tell... But we have thousands of other widely desired features, many of which could have substantial external components ripe for partnership. By asking the community you could also learn of our preexisting work in various areas. I'd also like to see a solution to the issue of developer representation at Wikimania. Commercial interests are generally able to afford to send representation to Wikimania, while many highly relevant open source projects are not. Thank you for your time.

On Jan 19, 2008 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Okay, then I'll be looking forward to an nearly infinite number of partnerships with well aligned open projects. My understanding is that Michael Dale was told that Wikimedia would be using Kaltura and that it might consider metavid some day 'in the future'. Perhaps I misunderstood, but this is also appears to be what was claimed in the presentation you gave to Sun Microsystems, and it was consistent with the press release that Kaltura was circulating when I heard this. The SVN hosting (which started a few weeks ago) is, as I understand it, a direct results of Kaltura-related complaints that WMF is ignoring requests for help from open projects. I'd ask Michael to respond directly, but I expect he is in Australia for FOMS (Foundations of Open Media Software, http://www.annodex.org/events/foms2008/pmwiki.php/Main/CFP). Many months ago I asked if I could travel to Australia (on my own dime, none the less) to attend FOMS for Wikimedia. That, today, WMF has no one there speaks volumes to WMF's actual commitment to open media. Talk is cheap. [snip] Correct. Yet WMF is putting our press releases and calling for community help with one and not the other. And it's not just Metavid vs Kaltura, there are dozens of open media projects which we are not supporting but could and should be. There are even quite a few open source flash video editors, if there was a reason to go the flash route, and we were approached years ago by the authors of a commercial Java video editor that wanted to work with us. Unlike Kaltura (and metavid), many of these other parties have mature technology. [snip] At least you've given me the respect of letting me know that I should not expect an answer from you on those questions. [snip] I don't agree here. The press release says open about a zillion times, but the existing level of openness is not especially high. I think it is misleading, and so do a number of outside parties who have a high degree of expertise in web media. I suppose this is a disagreement which we are not going to be able to resolve. That sounds nice, but I'm not sure what it means. I can guess, I suppose. Being all things to all people is worthless if you are nothing to yourself. The world does not need another ocean, but it does need a collection of uncompromisingly free knowledge. Not because compromises are evil, but because we already have a wealth of compromised options to choose from! I think that most of the community would be sad to see Wikimedia abandoning the things that make it special and distinct from competing information sources.. Even though doing so might speed our growth and allow us to blanket the world, I think many would consider that a hollow victory. The Foundation has a specific mission which can only be hurt by adopting proprietary formats. Apparently, you don't agree but you are unwilling to engage in discussion on this matter. While this continues a long standing pattern of failing to address these issues, there isn't much left for me to say in the absence of a counter argument.