forwarded from the foundation mailing list, most of this is irrelevant to wikimania apart from one bit. i have copied this up to the top but the whole email is below, if you want to see in context. <snip> 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. </snip> thanks mark ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Commons Discussion List < commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; Cc: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org On Jan 18, 2008 3:07 PM, Jay A. Walsh &lt;jwalsh(a)wikimedia.org&gt; 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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l