---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Gregory Maxwell <
gmaxwell@gmail.com
>
Date: Jan 18, 2008 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikipedia Invites Users to Take Part in Open, Collaborative Video Experiment
To:
jwalsh@wikimedia.org
, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <
commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc:
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org,
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org[snip]
> ability to bring multi-media, free knowledge content to our users. We
> recognize that Kaltura's software and interface are still not 100%
> open-source, and as such the technology will not appear on any
> Foundation projects until we've worked through some of the technical
> challenges - which is where you come in.
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.
> Kaltura has released their code to the open-source community to help
> this project along. It's available on SourceForge,
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)
> You're invited to examine the code, test the technology as it exists on
> WikiEducator, and help us bring this functionality to the Wikimedia
> Foundation projects over the coming months. You'll find a feedback
> process on the WikiEducator landing page, and of course we fully welcome
> discussion about the technology on the lists.
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.
> We're excited that an innovative, private business has taken strong
> initiative in embracing open-source development.
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.