hi everybody
thanks for the discussion below. I wanted to make a few short clarifications.
first, thanks for the friendly reminder about the lack of proper citations on our demo wiki. it was an oversight, that has now been corrected.
kaltura always was and remains fully committed to open source and open standards, and one of its main goals in this partnership is to enable Wikipedia and other wiki's around the world with an essential tool for multimedia collaboration that has been lacking.
doing so, however, is complicated and requires scafolding as the new body of code is built. as pointed out below, we are in the process of building a GNASH based solution that will replace Adobe's closed source flash. Unfortunately, GNASH is not ready for prime-time yet, but we hope it will be soon. We encourage developers to help us convert our GPL'ed ActionScript code so that it can run on GNASH. In fact, one of the main points of this beta program is to get support for this exact matter.
we welcome any additional feedback and constructive criticism on http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/Feedback_Page
kind regards,
Shay David CTO, Kaltura Inc. e: shay.david@kaltura.com w: http://www.kaltura.com
---------
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:28:19 +0100 From: "Michael Bimmler" mbimmler@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 353e9f360801171328m8303549jf2c14abed247e360@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Horse Cakes horsecakes@googlemail.com Date: Jan 17, 2008 10:27 PM Subject: Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi,
I'm wondering why the Wikimedia Foundation, the foundation hosting the "free encyclopedia", sees it acceptable to support Adobe's close-source proprietary Flash technology? Surely the Wikimedia foundation should be directly in opposition to any attempts to make their software less free? Does the proposed site even support ?
It's also worth adding that currently Kaltuna's website is breaking the GFDL due to lack of licensing information or references to the original authors - see http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/ . Why is the Wikimedia Foundation actively supporting a company that obvious cares little about its goals? Do you guys just support anyone who is willing to throw some money your way without even looking at what they're offering to ensure they aren't breaking the fundamental principles of the foundation?
I'm absolutely disgusted, and believe this is a new low for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Mr. Cakes.
P.S. Why do you make it as hard as possible to comment on these matters? Set up a Wiki rather than having to spend forever joining a mailing list to make comments.
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:30:17 +0100 From: "Michael Bimmler" mbimmler@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 353e9f360801171330pd7e9b1j96acd616b621dc4f@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
I would like to add that I consider this message borderline...but I forwarded it anyway.
Michael
On Jan 17, 2008 10:28 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Horse Cakes horsecakes@googlemail.com Date: Jan 17, 2008 10:27 PM Subject: Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: foundation-l-owner@lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi,
I'm wondering why the Wikimedia Foundation, the foundation hosting the "free encyclopedia", sees it acceptable to support Adobe's close-source proprietary Flash technology? Surely the Wikimedia foundation should be directly in opposition to any attempts to make their software less free? Does the proposed site even support Gnash?
It's also worth adding that currently Kaltuna's website is breaking the GFDL due to lack of licensing information or references to the original authors - see http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/ . Why is the Wikimedia Foundation actively supporting a company that obvious cares little about its goals? Do you guys just support anyone who is willing to throw some money your way without even looking at what they're offering to ensure they aren't breaking the fundamental principles of the foundation?
I'm absolutely disgusted, and believe this is a new low for the Wikimedia Foundation.
Mr. Cakes.
P.S. Why do you make it as hard as possible to comment on these matters? Set up a Wiki rather than having to spend forever joining a mailing list to make comments.
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:33:55 +0000 From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: fbad4e140801171333h4fe50848vae3f6cc3b8a2ec6e@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Horse Cakes horsecakes@googlemail.com
I'm wondering why the Wikimedia Foundation, the foundation hosting the "free encyclopedia", sees it acceptable to support Adobe's close-source proprietary Flash technology? Surely the Wikimedia foundation should be directly in opposition to any attempts to make their software less free? Does the proposed site even support Gnash?
For those wondering, Kaltura is working with the Gnash developers directly to make their stuff work under Gnash. (Though it may take a while.)
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:36:44 -0800 From: Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com Subject: [Foundation-l] countering systemic bias through copyright translation To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: a01006d90801171336t1f0eab64q5f1a9da4b5a48a18@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Commons:License information has significant gaps in copyright overviews for developing countries. This presents real problems for Wikimedians who wish to upload historic public domain images.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#License_information
The other day I located two panoramas: Havana harbor and the Panama Canal being built. Both are public domain under United States law where the images were published, but Commons rules require that they also be verified public domain in the country where they were photographed. Neither Cuba or Panama is listed on the license information page, so I've attempted a translation of the relevant law. My Spanish is not strong, nor am I qualified to give legal opinions, so if you can help please verify my tentative translations posted here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Requested_Translations#Spanish_to...
This raises another issue: which country's copyright laws prevail for the former Canal Zone? United States or Panama? Commons currently hosts some images of the canal's construction and the ones I checked are marked only as PD-US, which may or may not be adequate. And more generally, whose laws apply when national jurisdiction changes? I found some other historic photographs from Africa, but didn't upload them because of these unanswered questions.
Is there any coordinated effort to fill in the gaps at the Commons:License information page? If not, there should be.
-Durova
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:38:28 -0800 From: "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 38a7bf7c0801171338u4addeb07i64d6518a13cbd53d@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jan 17, 2008 1:30 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to add that I consider this message borderline...but I forwarded it anyway.
Michael
Horsecakes is repeatedly vandalizing the Kaltuna wiki. While I support open freedom of opinion, I don't know that his behavior there bodes well for continuing constructive contributions here.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
------------------------------
Message: 8 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:56:31 +0100 From: "Gerard Meijssen" gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 41a006820801171356v5d4e660lb388f5cf6f6ec856@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi, Vandalising elsewhere and being an upstanding citizen within the Wikimedia Foundation do not go together. When the allegation is true that he did vandalise Kaltuna, I have no interest nor respect for his opinion. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 17, 2008 10:38 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 1:30 PM, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to add that I consider this message borderline...but I forwarded it anyway.
Michael
Horsecakes is repeatedly vandalizing the Kaltuna wiki. While I support open freedom of opinion, I don't know that his behavior there bodes well for continuing constructive contributions here.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
------------------------------
Message: 9 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:02:16 -0500 From: "Andrew Whitworth" wknight8111@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 3b66f84e0801171402i1fd57d47y58eee7f44e6a7a23@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jan 17, 2008 4:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Vandalising elsewhere and being an upstanding citizen within the Wikimedia Foundation do not go together. When the allegation is true that he did vandalise Kaltuna, I have no interest nor respect for his opinion. Thanks, GerardM
The two are completely unrelated. So long as he behaves himself around here, It doesnt matter what he does elsewhere.
--Andrew Whitworth
------------------------------
Message: 10 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:08:56 -0500 From: Nathan nawrich@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 7e948df10801171408s1b7b63r7fd9a56a72b6ab42@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sure it matters. If you're a vandal and a troll in one place, why should we assume his behavior would be any better anywhere else? Its the purpose of a reputation - to allow others to assign the proper weight to your opinion. It isn't a permanent black mark, but it lasts awhile like any.
On Jan 17, 2008 5:02 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8111@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 4:56 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Vandalising elsewhere and being an upstanding citizen within the Wikimedia Foundation do not go together. When the allegation is true that he did vandalise Kaltuna, I have no interest nor respect for his opinion. Thanks, GerardM
The two are completely unrelated. So long as he behaves himself around here, It doesnt matter what he does elsewhere.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
------------------------------