I've come up with two tests which can be applied to issues like the file format discussion in order to reach the determinations which I believe to be most correct.
==Two Tests for the freeness of activities related to project content==
===Impoverished/principled reader test===
Imagine people who are sufficiently impoverished that they can only afford zero cost software or who are sufficiently concerned about their freedom that they only use legally licensed Free Software. Does taking the action discriminate against these people? Does taking the action give them a materially lesser experience?
===Impoverished/principled author test===
Imagine a collection of authors or publishers who are sufficiently impoverished that they can only afford zero cost software or who are sufficiently concerned about their freedom that they only use and distribute legally licensed Free Software. Would they be able to take the same or materially equivalent action related to their own content?
=== Examples ===
====Using a free software flash module to support clients which can't handle the HTML <canvas> tag====
This passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can be given the <canvas> tag which has equal or better functionality OR the reader could legally use Gnash.
This passes the impoverished author test: The impoverished author could legally perform the exact same action while paying no fees nor using/distributing any software which was not freely licensed.
====Parallel distribution of Video in both Ogg/Theora and Flash Video because Flash video is more widely adopted====
I think this passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can view the Ogg/Theora file, and the differences in quality/bitrate are neither likely to be material nor were contributing factors in the decision to offer Flash Video.
However, this clearly *fails* the impoverished author test: The impoverished author can not legally engage in parallel distribution himself without paying codec licensing for encoders and fees for the distribution of material in the licensed format. The author could distribute exclusively Ogg/Theora, but that wouldn't be equivalent because it has significantly less adoption (and that was the reason to consider parallel distribution in the first case).
====Parallel distribution of hypertext in an eBook format where only *reading* tools were non-free, and some free ebook formats====
What if a format is totally free to authors/publishers but isn't useful without a non-free reader? I believe this has been for some ebook formats, at some points in time. We'll presume that the free format isn't materially worse than the non-free one.
This passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can use the free ebook format.
This passes the impoverished author test: He's free to turn out ebooks in both formats just like we are.
It was re-reading some of Geni's posts that made me think of describing this "impoverished author" test. Much of Wikimedia's mission isn't merely providing read-only content at no cost to the public, it's also a mission of enabling authorship by building a collection of works that others can build upon. It's isn't good enough that our content be available to free software users, it also must be free for authors to emulate, modify, and/or republish. As such, both tests are equally important.
I wouldn't presume to apply these tests to things unrelated to the content (all that stuff our users are creating and posting in the projects) such as Wikimedia office activities: Our mission is one of enabling the world through freely licensed educational materials, not the creation/promotion of freely licensed office materials. (Although there are practical and ethical reasons outside of the Wikimedia mission why preferring freely licensed solutions is generally good...)
Thoughts? Holes? Better restatements?
Hoi, When you conflate impoverished and principled readers, you are talking about two distinct demographics. The issue is that modern software requires modern hardware and when there is no money for software, chances are that the hardware is substandard. This is not the case for "principled" users. They *can and do *buy the hardware to run the latest and greatest software.
An impoverished reader might use skype, a principled reader would not. One group is about cost to them and the other is about principles. Politically it is expedient to make these group seem to be as one. They are not. It is for instance known that Microsoft prefers people to use their software illegally then to have them use other software. It is for this reason that the argument that copyright violation is stealing is a lie; when Microsoft truly believed this, it would fight illigal software everywhere equally and this does not happen.
Free software and free standards are very much to be preferred; they create a level playing field and they ensure innovation better then proprietary principles will ever do. Please keep the arguments sane, impoverished is not principled, conflating them makes for a poor argument. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I've come up with two tests which can be applied to issues like the file format discussion in order to reach the determinations which I believe to be most correct.
==Two Tests for the freeness of activities related to project content==
===Impoverished/principled reader test===
Imagine people who are sufficiently impoverished that they can only afford zero cost software or who are sufficiently concerned about their freedom that they only use legally licensed Free Software. Does taking the action discriminate against these people? Does taking the action give them a materially lesser experience?
===Impoverished/principled author test===
Imagine a collection of authors or publishers who are sufficiently impoverished that they can only afford zero cost software or who are sufficiently concerned about their freedom that they only use and distribute legally licensed Free Software. Would they be able to take the same or materially equivalent action related to their own content?
=== Examples ===
====Using a free software flash module to support clients which can't handle the HTML <canvas> tag====
This passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can be given the <canvas> tag which has equal or better functionality OR the reader could legally use Gnash.
This passes the impoverished author test: The impoverished author could legally perform the exact same action while paying no fees nor using/distributing any software which was not freely licensed.
====Parallel distribution of Video in both Ogg/Theora and Flash Video because Flash video is more widely adopted====
I think this passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can view the Ogg/Theora file, and the differences in quality/bitrate are neither likely to be material nor were contributing factors in the decision to offer Flash Video.
However, this clearly *fails* the impoverished author test: The impoverished author can not legally engage in parallel distribution himself without paying codec licensing for encoders and fees for the distribution of material in the licensed format. The author could distribute exclusively Ogg/Theora, but that wouldn't be equivalent because it has significantly less adoption (and that was the reason to consider parallel distribution in the first case).
====Parallel distribution of hypertext in an eBook format where only *reading* tools were non-free, and some free ebook formats====
What if a format is totally free to authors/publishers but isn't useful without a non-free reader? I believe this has been for some ebook formats, at some points in time. We'll presume that the free format isn't materially worse than the non-free one.
This passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can use the free ebook format.
This passes the impoverished author test: He's free to turn out ebooks in both formats just like we are.
It was re-reading some of Geni's posts that made me think of describing this "impoverished author" test. Much of Wikimedia's mission isn't merely providing read-only content at no cost to the public, it's also a mission of enabling authorship by building a collection of works that others can build upon. It's isn't good enough that our content be available to free software users, it also must be free for authors to emulate, modify, and/or republish. As such, both tests are equally important.
I wouldn't presume to apply these tests to things unrelated to the content (all that stuff our users are creating and posting in the projects) such as Wikimedia office activities: Our mission is one of enabling the world through freely licensed educational materials, not the creation/promotion of freely licensed office materials. (Although there are practical and ethical reasons outside of the Wikimedia mission why preferring freely licensed solutions is generally good...)
Thoughts? Holes? Better restatements?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you conflate impoverished and principled readers, you are talking about two distinct demographics. The issue is that modern software requires modern hardware and when there is no money for software, chances are that the hardware is substandard. This is not the case for "principled" users. They *can and do *buy the hardware to run the latest and greatest software.
Modern free software requires hardware old 5 years (surprisingly, contemporary processors are around 2x1.5-2.5GHz, while 5 years ago it was around 1x2-3GHz; 5 years ago ordinary new computers had 256MB-512MB of RAM with a possibility to buy more; now new computers have 512MB-1GB of RAM). A lot of companies have 2 or 3 years of hardware recycling period and older computers are usually donated or sold for small amount of money. You may run very well all important new free software (Firefox, OpenOffice and similar) with 5 years old computer. (Actually, I have 4 years old laptop which works quite fine with the newest software.)
While hardware is some issue, it is much lesser issue to find someone to donate to you hardware or to buy it for 50 EUR/USD than proprietary proprietary software for 500+ EUR/USD (or, even, for a couple of thousands of EUR/USD).
So, while this Gregory's argument is not an absolute one, it is very close to the reality.
An impoverished reader might use skype, a principled reader would not. One group is about cost to them and the other is about principles. Politically it is expedient to make these group seem to be as one. They are not. It is for instance known that Microsoft prefers people to use their software illegally then to have them use other software. It is for this reason that the argument that copyright violation is stealing is a lie; when Microsoft truly believed this, it would fight illigal software everywhere equally and this does not happen.
I don't have anything against anyone who is using "illegal" software. But, I don't want to use it because I am not able to improve that software; as well as I am not able to be sure that my products made by using such software would be supported after some amount of time. Also, I have a limited time in my life and I don't want to spend a lot of time on learning technology which I may have to abandon because of a management decision of some company.
So, we have a lot of practical problems related to adoption of proprietary software -- if we are thinking about our [collective] future.
And about using Skype: Yes, Skype is good enough (but: just because there is no better software) for communication. However, it is not possible to upgrade Skype with your own needs. I am sure that anyone who is working with sound and video is able to find a number of very useful things which Skype is not able to do, while it wouldn't be a big deal to make it if it would be free software.
BTW, Skype is not the only software which is working well for VoIP. Ekiga is working quite well, and it worked very well (as Gnome Meeting) 5 years ago. Actually, it doesn't have daily peaks, like Skype has because communication is a direct one; as well as you may improve Ekiga, while you are not able to improve Skype.
Hoi, Milos who do you want to kid ? A new computer with all the trimmings is able to have multiple pieces of software open at the same time, it is able to listen to music, have muliple applications running that contact the Internet and it still performs really well. An old computer may be able to run Firefox or Open Office and it does work on Windows XP or Linux in the same way.
The key point is that there are two demographics and they should not be mixed to make a believable argument. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you conflate impoverished and principled readers, you are talking
about
two distinct demographics. The issue is that modern software requires
modern
hardware and when there is no money for software, chances are that the hardware is substandard. This is not the case for "principled" users.
They *can
and do *buy the hardware to run the latest and greatest software.
Modern free software requires hardware old 5 years (surprisingly, contemporary processors are around 2x1.5-2.5GHz, while 5 years ago it was around 1x2-3GHz; 5 years ago ordinary new computers had 256MB-512MB of RAM with a possibility to buy more; now new computers have 512MB-1GB of RAM). A lot of companies have 2 or 3 years of hardware recycling period and older computers are usually donated or sold for small amount of money. You may run very well all important new free software (Firefox, OpenOffice and similar) with 5 years old computer. (Actually, I have 4 years old laptop which works quite fine with the newest software.)
While hardware is some issue, it is much lesser issue to find someone to donate to you hardware or to buy it for 50 EUR/USD than proprietary proprietary software for 500+ EUR/USD (or, even, for a couple of thousands of EUR/USD).
So, while this Gregory's argument is not an absolute one, it is very close to the reality.
An impoverished reader might use skype, a principled reader would not.
One
group is about cost to them and the other is about principles.
Politically
it is expedient to make these group seem to be as one. They are not. It
is
for instance known that Microsoft prefers people to use their software illegally then to have them use other software. It is for this reason
that
the argument that copyright violation is stealing is a lie; when
Microsoft
truly believed this, it would fight illigal software everywhere equally
and
this does not happen.
I don't have anything against anyone who is using "illegal" software. But, I don't want to use it because I am not able to improve that software; as well as I am not able to be sure that my products made by using such software would be supported after some amount of time. Also, I have a limited time in my life and I don't want to spend a lot of time on learning technology which I may have to abandon because of a management decision of some company.
So, we have a lot of practical problems related to adoption of proprietary software -- if we are thinking about our [collective] future.
And about using Skype: Yes, Skype is good enough (but: just because there is no better software) for communication. However, it is not possible to upgrade Skype with your own needs. I am sure that anyone who is working with sound and video is able to find a number of very useful things which Skype is not able to do, while it wouldn't be a big deal to make it if it would be free software.
BTW, Skype is not the only software which is working well for VoIP. Ekiga is working quite well, and it worked very well (as Gnome Meeting) 5 years ago. Actually, it doesn't have daily peaks, like Skype has because communication is a direct one; as well as you may improve Ekiga, while you are not able to improve Skype.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Milos who do you want to kid ? A new computer with all the trimmings is able to have multiple pieces of software open at the same time, it is able to listen to music, have muliple applications running that contact the Internet and it still performs really well. An old computer may be able to run Firefox or Open Office and it does work on Windows XP or Linux in the same way.
The key point is that there are two demographics and they should not be mixed to make a believable argument.
A laptop old 4 years is able to run ~100 tabs of Firefox 3 (separated in windows, of course), OpenOffice2.x and play music. When we meet, I may demonstrate it to you. (Of course, on GNU/Linux.)
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Milos who do you want to kid ? A new computer with all the trimmings is able to have multiple pieces of software open at the same time, it is able to listen to music, have muliple applications running that contact the Internet and it still performs really well. An old computer may be able to run Firefox or Open Office and it does work on Windows XP or Linux in the same way.
The key point is that there are two demographics and they should not be mixed to make a believable argument.
A laptop old 4 years is able to run ~100 tabs of Firefox 3 (separated in windows, of course), OpenOffice2.x and play music. When we meet, I may demonstrate it to you. (Of course, on GNU/Linux.)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I believe that all of this takes away from the core point that Milos has made, however, this being that our goal is not "free of charge to read". It is, instead, the goal of freedom to copy, modify, and/or redistribute content without encumbrances of requesting permission or having to use nonfree software. I think the "principled author" test is an excellent one to determine if a given distribution mechanism meets that goal. In the case of Flash, it clearly does not.
We also should recall that Wikimedia is not exactly a bit player. If we distribute media in the Ogg/Theora formats, and provide a "Can't play this file? Click here" link next to them, we will be enabling and promoting the use of these formats, as a user who installs the appropriate software for those formats can now view them anywhere, not just on Wikimedia projects. Given Wikimedia's size and popularity, that impact would be substantial. We should be supporting free software and formats, not undermining them just because a nonfree format might be more popular.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org