On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen
<toddmallen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This proposal asks to move to a "free as in
beer" model, where content will
> be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
> it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
> but it is a major change to the founding principles of what we do. As such
> it should be discussed directly and across all projects as such a major
> change, and not backdoored through a vote that is on its surface a question
> about format support.
As much as I hate how MPEG-LA and MPEG-4 creates a
non-free climate for our
video, it's unfair to use "backdoor" to characterize intent of either
community members or WMF employees in this area.
I think it's quite fair to note, loudly and often, that *functionally*
it creates a backdoor for nonfree content.
This is a major, major change, being posited as allowing a format.
Furthermore, this has been discussed before, and the proponents *are
fully aware* that it is a major, major change that they are positing
as allowing a format.
So claiming that it's "assuming bad faith" to notice this and say so
comes across as disingenuous.
- d.