I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and "free speech"?
While neutrality (NPOV) is a central policy at Wikimedia (and probably its very best policy!), the Wikimedia Foundation is not neutral about *everything*. There are some things about which it takes a very clear stance, and one of those things is freedom.
When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
On a practical level, the decision may have been more about promoting Ogg Vorbis that about real legal worries about MP3. But that is valid as well. Personally, I agree completely with Jimbo's principled decision to disallow MP3. That is because "free content" is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy of Wikimedia.
For details, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sound#File_formats and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html.
When it comes to the Chinese Wikinews, however, the Wikimedia Foundation has not stood up (so far) for free content.
Here the problem is not "free beer" but "free speech." To dely or deny setting up *any* Wikimedia project because of the fear or threat of censorship is something that the Foundation should be ashamed of. This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia.
Do we really believe in free speech? Or is the only policy Wikimedia really cares about one of "free beer" (i.e. in the case of Ogg Vorbis, the legal technicalities of open source software)? Open software is terribly important, but it is no more important that providing an outlet for people to write free news stories in Chinese.
Far more than enough users have already requested the Chinese project. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Chinese.28zh.29. Some are mainland Chinese, others are part of the Chinese diaspora numbering tens of millions, people who have no worries about government censorship. All have been jointly denied, up to now, a useful project, only because of fears of censorship.
Are those fears justified? Perhaps. But the more relevant question is: Even if the fears are justified, does that allow Wikimedia to be untrue to its value of "free" projects (which includes "freedom of speech")? Furthermore, because *some* Chinese users fear censorship, should the project be delayed or denied to all?
This is also an issue of power. Yes, power. Do we believe in our own strength? Wikimedia has become, quite unexpectedly, a very well-known, well-respected, and influential organization all over the world. That means that even if the threats censorship are real, and even if there is some censorship in the short term, there is every reason to believe that such censorship will not stand for long. Just as blocking was lifted from the Chinese Wikipedia, it will be lifted, eventually, from Wikinews. The Chinese government will not be able, for long, to justify its opposition to Wikimedia projects. But we have to believe in ourselves, and in the fundamental value of free speech.
To conclude (and I apologize for this being so long), Wikimedia today is a project that is "free" as in free beer. But as long as Chinese Wikinews is delayed or denied, Wikimedia is *not* free as in free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation must take an absolutely clear, non-negotiable position that the fear or threat of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with any existing or proposed Wikimedia Project. "Free speech" is no less important that "free beer."
Dovi Jacobs
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Dovi Jacobs a écrit:
I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and "free speech"?
While neutrality (NPOV) is a central policy at Wikimedia (and probably its very best policy!), the Wikimedia Foundation is not neutral about *everything*. There are some things about which it takes a very clear stance, and one of those things is freedom.
When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
On a practical level, the decision may have been more about promoting Ogg Vorbis that about real legal worries about MP3. But that is valid as well. Personally, I agree completely with Jimbo's principled decision to disallow MP3. That is because "free content" is a fundamental, non-negotiable policy of Wikimedia.
For details, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sound#File_formats and http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-July/011514.html.
When it comes to the Chinese Wikinews, however, the Wikimedia Foundation has not stood up (so far) for free content.
Here the problem is not "free beer" but "free speech." To dely or deny setting up *any* Wikimedia project because of the fear or threat of censorship is something that the Foundation should be ashamed of. This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia.
Do we really believe in free speech? Or is the only policy Wikimedia really cares about one of "free beer" (i.e. in the case of Ogg Vorbis, the legal technicalities of open source software)? Open software is terribly important, but it is no more important that providing an outlet for people to write free news stories in Chinese.
Far more than enough users have already requested the Chinese project. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Start_a_new_edition#Chinese.28zh.29. Some are mainland Chinese, others are part of the Chinese diaspora numbering tens of millions, people who have no worries about government censorship. All have been jointly denied, up to now, a useful project, only because of fears of censorship.
Are those fears justified? Perhaps. But the more relevant question is: Even if the fears are justified, does that allow Wikimedia to be untrue to its value of "free" projects (which includes "freedom of speech")? Furthermore, because *some* Chinese users fear censorship, should the project be delayed or denied to all?
This is also an issue of power. Yes, power. Do we believe in our own strength? Wikimedia has become, quite unexpectedly, a very well-known, well-respected, and influential organization all over the world. That means that even if the threats censorship are real, and even if there is some censorship in the short term, there is every reason to believe that such censorship will not stand for long. Just as blocking was lifted from the Chinese Wikipedia, it will be lifted, eventually, from Wikinews. The Chinese government will not be able, for long, to justify its opposition to Wikimedia projects. But we have to believe in ourselves, and in the fundamental value of free speech.
To conclude (and I apologize for this being so long), Wikimedia today is a project that is "free" as in free beer. But as long as Chinese Wikinews is delayed or denied, Wikimedia is *not* free as in free speech.
The Wikimedia Foundation must take an absolutely clear, non-negotiable position that the fear or threat of censorship will not be allowed to interfere with any existing or proposed Wikimedia Project. "Free speech" is no less important that "free beer."
Dovi Jacobs
You make a very good point and I thank you for your very clear mail.
There is a little thing disturbing me in your argumentation. You explain Jimbo took the good decision with regards to the use of .ogg, while hinting that if a vote had taken place, it is likely MP3 would have been accepted. You consider then that Jimbo or the Foundation had to take *this* decision, because it was a fundamental one. Hence to be taken, whatever the position of the community on it.
As you say "This is not a "community" issue, and to call it such is to misrepresent the problem. This is an issue about the fundamental policies of Wikimedia."
However, you also argue that till now, many chinese have asked for the wikinews and that we are denying them a useful project. So... you fall back on an argument based on user request...
This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy to all agree on what should be done :-)
ant
Anthere:
This is a tricky issue. Either we consider it fully a fundamental policy and the fact part of users support and part of users oppose the creation should NOT be taken into account... or we decide it is important, but require clearer community support. Not so easy to all agree on what should be done :-)
Dovi makes an important point which I also made in my "State of the Wiki" summary, which is that there are millions of Chinese speakers who would not be affected by censorship in mainland China. So, effectively, there are two communities: one that would feel the censorship, and one that wouldn't. The question is, should lack of support in one of them be sufficient to deny the project to the other?
Regards,
Erik
Dovi Jacobs wrote:
I recently stumbled upon the mailing-list discussion of the Chinese Wikinews. When I found the discussion, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Is this the Wikimedia Foundation that believes in free projects creating free content, "free" as in both "free beer" and "free speech"?
I think you're getting actual free speech confused with the paradoxical terminology used by Richard Stallman to describe software with restricted rights of use and distribution. Wikimedia supports the latter but has never supported the former. Rightly or wrongly, Wikimedia projects have been complicit in censorship of various kinds. I don't think the discussion of censorship is aided by conflating these two concepts.
-- Tim Starling
On 5/2/05, Dovi Jacobs dovijacobs@yahoo.com wrote:
When it came to the issue of audio file formats, for instance, Jimbo Wales made a very clear and correct decision that only file formats that could legally be used in free software would be allowed. Many tens of thousands of Wikimedia users would probably have liked to have been allowed to upload MP3 files. If an open vote had been held, MP3 would probably have been allowed. But no vote was held, because this is a fundamental Wikimedia policy.
Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free software? In that case I agree with not including it. Or is it used, but do we say that's illegal? In that case I still think we should shut up and just allow it. The issue should be availability, not politics. Especially not politics that noone else seems to care about.
Andre Engels
On Monday 02 May 2005 11:01, Andre Engels wrote:
Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free software?
FWIW: SuSE as well as RedHat removed the mp3 codecs from their recent distributions.
best regards, Marco
Andre Engels wrote:
Now, that's an interesting point. IF this were really the point, I MIGHT just give up. You say that MP3 cannot be "legally used in free software". So, what is going on? Is it indeed not used in free software? In that case I agree with not including it. Or is it used, but do we say that's illegal?
I am willing to defer on this issue to Debian. Can anyone report on whether or not MP3s can be created and played with software that Debian has in their 'free' category?
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am willing to defer on this issue to Debian. Can anyone report on whether or not MP3s can be created and played with software that Debian has in their 'free' category?
Mp3s can indeed be both created and played with tools from Debian's 'main' (i.e. completely free, as opposed to 'non-free', which is non-free, or 'contrib', which is free but depends on non-free libraries). One such tool that can do both is Audacity (see [[Audacity]] on de:, en:, fr:, nl:, pl:, or zh:; Debian package 'audacity').
-Mark
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 18:22 -0400, Delirium wrote:
Mp3s can indeed be both created and played with tools from Debian's 'main' (i.e. completely free, as opposed to 'non-free', which is non-free, or 'contrib', which is free but depends on non-free libraries). One such tool that can do both is Audacity (see [[Audacity]] on de:, en:, fr:, nl:, pl:, or zh:; Debian package 'audacity').
But the user has to download and install the LAME libraries manually, because they can't be distributed with Debian. Yes, users are off the hook, but distributors still have restrictions.
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 20:03 +0200, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am willing to defer on this issue to Debian. Can anyone report on whether or not MP3s can be created and played with software that Debian has in their 'free' category?
Fraunhofer, the owners of the mp3 patents, claim $0.75 royalties per decoder sold; they explicitly say that this fee is waived for "free software distributed over the Internet", but that does mean that Linux distributions on CD or sold by other means cannot include MP3 decoders without triggering the fee, but they can point users to where free decoders can be downloaded.
Whether their claim has any legal validity is another issue entirely.
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 20:03 +0200, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am willing to defer on this issue to Debian. Can anyone report on whether or not MP3s can be created and played with software that Debian has in their 'free' category?
Fraunhofer, the owners of the mp3 patents, claim $0.75 royalties per decoder sold; they explicitly say that this fee is waived for "free software distributed over the Internet", but that does mean that Linux distributions on CD or sold by other means cannot include MP3 decoders without triggering the fee, but they can point users to where free decoders can be downloaded.
Whether their claim has any legal validity is another issue entirely.
While I would grant that many software patent issues are dubious at best (notably the LZW GIF issue from back elsewhen), this one is quite legitamate, and well known by at least those who are quite familiar with the development of multimedia software. The compression algorithm was specifically designed by Fraunhofer for the MPEG Audio (ISO/IEC 11172-2) specification, and credit for that effort is published in the appendex of that specification, with a specific warning that it needed to be contacted in order to resolve any patent issues. And the algorithm employed by Fraunhofer really is unique enough that I don't have as much of a problem with them claiming patent status as opposed to the incredibly silly patents that have been issues (like the one-click patent by Amazon.com). Their "legal" website is:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
I've been involved with multimedia data formats for some time, and I would have to say that the "non-free" status of MP3s is indeed a huge issue for an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation. This is not something to be lightly swept under the rug. While you can have "free software" that implements the specification, the legal issues are hardly clear. Another website I would strongly recommend to look at is:
This is the "licensing authority" for most MPEG products, and will give you at least somewhat of a legal whitewash if you license stuff through them. It doesn't, however, cover MP3s, which is why you need to license directly through Fraunhofer. By legal whitewash, I mean that people known to the MPEG committee to have patent issues with the standards have been contacted and negotiated with to set the fees. They still don't guarentee that you will be safe from patent violation, but you have been covered from the major players who open insist on royalties for those patents that are covered by the specs.
Ugly, and it does get worse.
Where it comes down to what the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, there would be interest in selling copies of Wikimedia content (on CDs, in books, etc.) even if it is just as a fundraiser to pay for the server farm. Fraunhofer is insisting on a royalty for even distributing MP3s, so some of the money raised from the sale of a Wikipedia CD (for example), would have to be sent to the MP3 licensing authority. I don't know the legality of this in Europe, but I wouldn't avoid paying this fee there either without a lawyer on retainer to deal with potential lawsuits.
The "free" aspect is more a recognition that one of the major reasons why MP3s are popular is because they are widely traded over the internet, and they don't want to hassle all of the free MP3 download sites, unlike the RIAA. This still violates the terms of the GPL, notably clause seven:
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
While this clause is not in the GFDL (I am surprised here on this point), I would expect a similar legal argument if it were brought up.
While I am not a lawyer, I do have experience in this issue from a professional standpoint, and it is my strong recommendation that the Wikimedia Foundation avoid MP3s on any of the Wikimedia sites, as it violates at least in nature free media, and could produce headaches for the Foundation that would be better left alone. When the Fraunhofer patent expires, that may be another issue, and I do expect that the Wikipedia will outlive this patent, but that is several years in the future.
So, based on all this, I think it is safe to say that our existing ban on MP3s should stand.
--Jimbo
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 20:03 +0200, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am willing to defer on this issue to Debian. Can anyone report on whether or not MP3s can be created and played with software that Debian has in their 'free' category?
Fraunhofer, the owners of the mp3 patents, claim $0.75 royalties per decoder sold; they explicitly say that this fee is waived for "free software distributed over the Internet", but that does mean that Linux distributions on CD or sold by other means cannot include MP3 decoders without triggering the fee, but they can point users to where free decoders can be downloaded.
Whether their claim has any legal validity is another issue entirely.
While I would grant that many software patent issues are dubious at best (notably the LZW GIF issue from back elsewhen), this one is quite legitamate, and well known by at least those who are quite familiar with the development of multimedia software. The compression algorithm was specifically designed by Fraunhofer for the MPEG Audio (ISO/IEC 11172-2) specification, and credit for that effort is published in the appendex of that specification, with a specific warning that it needed to be contacted in order to resolve any patent issues. And the algorithm employed by Fraunhofer really is unique enough that I don't have as much of a problem with them claiming patent status as opposed to the incredibly silly patents that have been issues (like the one-click patent by Amazon.com). Their "legal" website is:
http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/index.html
I've been involved with multimedia data formats for some time, and I would have to say that the "non-free" status of MP3s is indeed a huge issue for an organization like the Wikimedia Foundation. This is not something to be lightly swept under the rug. While you can have "free software" that implements the specification, the legal issues are hardly clear. Another website I would strongly recommend to look at is:
This is the "licensing authority" for most MPEG products, and will give you at least somewhat of a legal whitewash if you license stuff through them. It doesn't, however, cover MP3s, which is why you need to license directly through Fraunhofer. By legal whitewash, I mean that people known to the MPEG committee to have patent issues with the standards have been contacted and negotiated with to set the fees. They still don't guarentee that you will be safe from patent violation, but you have been covered from the major players who open insist on royalties for those patents that are covered by the specs.
Ugly, and it does get worse.
Where it comes down to what the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, there would be interest in selling copies of Wikimedia content (on CDs, in books, etc.) even if it is just as a fundraiser to pay for the server farm. Fraunhofer is insisting on a royalty for even distributing MP3s, so some of the money raised from the sale of a Wikipedia CD (for example), would have to be sent to the MP3 licensing authority. I don't know the legality of this in Europe, but I wouldn't avoid paying this fee there either without a lawyer on retainer to deal with potential lawsuits.
The "free" aspect is more a recognition that one of the major reasons why MP3s are popular is because they are widely traded over the internet, and they don't want to hassle all of the free MP3 download sites, unlike the RIAA. This still violates the terms of the GPL, notably clause seven:
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
While this clause is not in the GFDL (I am surprised here on this point), I would expect a similar legal argument if it were brought up.
While I am not a lawyer, I do have experience in this issue from a professional standpoint, and it is my strong recommendation that the Wikimedia Foundation avoid MP3s on any of the Wikimedia sites, as it violates at least in nature free media, and could produce headaches for the Foundation that would be better left alone. When the Fraunhofer patent expires, that may be another issue, and I do expect that the Wikipedia will outlive this patent, but that is several years in the future.
Hi.
I haven't seen the original discussion about a Chinese Wikinews, so this is the first time I hear why it was disallowed.
If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by censoring it yourself?...
Timwi (timwi@gmx.net) [050502 23:19]:
If I understand this right... and please correct me if I don't... you are "afraid" that censorship might happen, and so you preempt it by censoring it yourself?...
And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the world ...
Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language projects? Of course it wouldn't.
- d.
On 5/3/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the world ...
Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language projects? Of course it wouldn't.
- d.
This isnt quite a fair comparision. It ignores the massive difference in population. Britain is about 50 million people out of over a billion english speakers. Mainland China is over a billion chinese speakers out of a populaiton of one point something billion speakers.
paz y amor, [[wikinews:User:The bellman]]
Robin Shannon (robin.shannon@gmail.com) [050503 02:28]:
On 5/3/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
And never mind the Chinese speakers in Taiwan, the US, the rest of the world ... Let's imagine the UK government became ridiculously censorious. Would the US-based Wikimedia then adopt the same attitude to English language projects? Of course it wouldn't.
This isnt quite a fair comparision. It ignores the massive difference in population. Britain is about 50 million people out of over a billion english speakers. Mainland China is over a billion chinese speakers out of a populaiton of one point something billion speakers.
My point is that rather than shying away from it, I think the "FUCK THAT" in response would be audible from orbit.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org