One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
Kat Walsh has asked licensing@fsf.org, but they tend to act like a Magic 8 Ball that says "read the license text and consult your lawyer."
I asked about audio versions of GFDL text on the FSFE discussion list. One useful suggestion (from M. J. Ray) was:
Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F). There's probably other special cases too.
Is there such a provision in US law? I presume there is one in other legal systems too.
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
- d.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:01 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text?
Depends on how you intend to distribute the spoken text. The GFDL does not state that the text of the license must be in the same format as the rest of the document. Including the license in an online distribution is easy. Including the license in a physical distribution (of CDs or whatever) is easy. The only difficulty I can see for this would be for an audio broadcast - but then again, the GFDL doesn't even mention anything about the public performance right (only the public display right), so by a strict reading of the license you aren't permitted to make an audio broadcast of a GFDL work anyway. And what radio station wants to broadcast GFDL documents anyway?
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
If anything, requiring the license to be spoken when the rest of the document is spoken would benefit the blind, as it would more easily inform them of their rights. That's the whole point of requiring the license to be included, right? To inform people of their rights?
Hoi, Given that it has been indicated that a new version of the GFDL is imminent, given that it is not unlikely to be there before the end of this month, would it not make sense to leave this question until the new version is released?
A practical point, all the pronunciations that I put into Commons, may be re-licensed to CC-by.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
Kat Walsh has asked licensing@fsf.org, but they tend to act like a Magic 8 Ball that says "read the license text and consult your lawyer."
I asked about audio versions of GFDL text on the FSFE discussion list. One useful suggestion (from M. J. Ray) was:
Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F). There's probably other special cases too.
Is there such a provision in US law? I presume there is one in other legal systems too.
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 22/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Given that it has been indicated that a new version of the GFDL is imminent, given that it is not unlikely to be there before the end of this month, would it not make sense to leave this question until the new version is released?
It depends whether that actually achieves the long-desired CC-by-sa compatibility. I'm not assuming that until it happens.
- d.
Hoi, I have no idea either. I am talking about doing nothing, deciding nothing for little over a week. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:57 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Given that it has been indicated that a new version of the GFDL is
imminent,
given that it is not unlikely to be there before the end of this month, would it not make sense to leave this question until the new version is released?
It depends whether that actually achieves the long-desired CC-by-sa compatibility. I'm not assuming that until it happens.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/4/22 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I asked about audio versions of GFDL text on the FSFE discussion list. One useful suggestion (from M. J. Ray) was:
Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F). There's probably other special cases too.
That's the 1988 Act as amended by the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002, if you're like me and looked it up and got confused :-)
[general non-GFDL-specific note, normal disclaimers apply]
A quick skim of the relevant bits in my lunchbreak suggests that it's like the 'librarians get to make all sorts of copies' provisions; - whilst it's very broad in what it applies to, it's very limited in what/who you can do it for. Making the copy legitimately is all well and good, but if you can't give it to anyone you get a bit stalled :-)
You'd probably be on shaky ground if you tried to use it to defend a measure which produced a beneficial and potentially marketable derivative product (ie, a spoken-word version) and then gave it out to all-comers, regardless of impairment.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:01 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
Kat Walsh has asked licensing@fsf.org, but they tend to act like a Magic 8 Ball that says "read the license text and consult your lawyer."
I asked about audio versions of GFDL text on the FSFE discussion list. One useful suggestion (from M. J. Ray) was:
Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F). There's probably other special cases too.
Is there such a provision in US law? I presume there is one in other legal systems too.
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Yep.
The plain language of the license, i.e.:
"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies..."
Pretty much says you can't seperate the license text from the document. One might even argue that the license has to be distributed within the file as the material it applies to. I'd say that these terms are at least as onerous for images as it is for audio (maybe even worse).
That said, if we've waited this long already, then I think it is worth waiting to see what GFDL 1.3 provides.
-Robert Rohde
On 22/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
You can't but assuming you are dealing with more normal people there are ways to do it.
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Not the problem you might think. Obviously it will limit the formats you can use. 45s and 78s are going to be basically unusable and 33s would be fairly borderline.
For CDs it is less of a problem. You have a single track dedicated to the legal stuff and everything else just as normal. If you want to put multiple articles onto a single CD then it would probably a be a good idea to take the approach of merging them into a single document. If you make a CD that is say a series of spoken versions of our US president articles then you are going to run into problems with the size of the article history but by using synthesised speech and dumping the lot on a separate CD it should be doable.
In the end it's just another version of the old overhead problem that means the GFDL is useless for postcards as well.
Invariant sections can of course case massive problems. If an invariant section is an image you are basically stuffed.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
No more than many EULAs
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with invariant sections as the GFDL.
On 22/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
No more than many EULAs
Which makes said EULAs themselves legally questionable ;-)
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with invariant sections as the GFDL.
Yeah. At least GFDL will let you just name the five main authors (whoever they might be).
- d.
Let's run with the idea that provoked these questions to foundation-l, and to the FSF. The most apparent one to most people here is the Spoken Articles on Wikipedia. They're from GFDL material and looking at the license as it stands, none of the people drafting it dreamt an encyclopedia - let alone audio portions thereof - would ever exist and be covered by it. Perhaps it is fortuitous that this aspect has come up before the new license is in place? Perhaps there is a wider scope to consider in drafting it?
That "wider scope" is what one of the contributors to this discussion has highlighted as a seriously headache-forming area under current constraints, namely Radio. Trust me, dealing with a license that was drafted when hard-cased floppy disks were cutting-edge technology is going to give Mike Godwin headaches, not just the average list contributor.
So, yes, as a few people on a few of the non-WP projects are aware, the idea that provoked these questions was indeed radio. A 24/7 MediaWiki Radio service running Wikinews new pieces, spoken Wikipedia, music from Commons, Lectures workshops and tutorials from Wikiversity, Quote of the Day from Wikiquote, and "Book of the Month" from Wikisource. As the discussion on the Communications Committee list saw this labelled, "WikiRadio 4" (See WP article on BBC Radio 4").
What are people's thoughts on this? Kicking the idea about on Wikinews' Water Cooler has made it look that filling a repeated six or eight-hour schedule is achievable within a realistic timeframe. It does not conflict with projects getting off the ground to do podcasts, but would mean they'd need advised to start working towards fitting to broadcast time constraints as a way of having an eye on the future. Could we aim for a radio station for Wikimania 2008, with Spanish lessons broadcast in the preceding weeks/months? Could we persuade Wikipedia people to add "doing a recording" to the composition of the daily main page?
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 22 April 2008 19:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal position of audio recordings of GFDLcontent?
On 22/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
You can't but assuming you are dealing with more normal people there are ways to do it.
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Not the problem you might think. Obviously it will limit the formats you can use. 45s and 78s are going to be basically unusable and 33s would be fairly borderline.
For CDs it is less of a problem. You have a single track dedicated to the legal stuff and everything else just as normal. If you want to put multiple articles onto a single CD then it would probably a be a good idea to take the approach of merging them into a single document. If you make a CD that is say a series of spoken versions of our US president articles then you are going to run into problems with the size of the article history but by using synthesised speech and dumping the lot on a separate CD it should be doable.
In the end it's just another version of the old overhead problem that means the GFDL is useless for postcards as well.
Invariant sections can of course case massive problems. If an invariant section is an image you are basically stuffed.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
No more than many EULAs
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with invariant sections as the GFDL.
I really /really/ like this idea, can you keep the list updated for those of us who aren't following on the wiki?
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Let's run with the idea that provoked these questions to foundation-l, and to the FSF. The most apparent one to most people here is the Spoken Articles on Wikipedia. They're from GFDL material and looking at the license as it stands, none of the people drafting it dreamt an encyclopedia - let alone audio portions thereof - would ever exist and be covered by it. Perhaps it is fortuitous that this aspect has come up before the new license is in place? Perhaps there is a wider scope to consider in drafting it?
That "wider scope" is what one of the contributors to this discussion has highlighted as a seriously headache-forming area under current constraints, namely Radio. Trust me, dealing with a license that was drafted when hard-cased floppy disks were cutting-edge technology is going to give Mike Godwin headaches, not just the average list contributor.
So, yes, as a few people on a few of the non-WP projects are aware, the idea that provoked these questions was indeed radio. A 24/7 MediaWiki Radio service running Wikinews new pieces, spoken Wikipedia, music from Commons, Lectures workshops and tutorials from Wikiversity, Quote of the Day from Wikiquote, and "Book of the Month" from Wikisource. As the discussion on the Communications Committee list saw this labelled, "WikiRadio 4" (See WP article on BBC Radio 4").
What are people's thoughts on this? Kicking the idea about on Wikinews' Water Cooler has made it look that filling a repeated six or eight-hour schedule is achievable within a realistic timeframe. It does not conflict with projects getting off the ground to do podcasts, but would mean they'd need advised to start working towards fitting to broadcast time constraints as a way of having an eye on the future. Could we aim for a radio station for Wikimania 2008, with Spanish lessons broadcast in the preceding weeks/months? Could we persuade Wikipedia people to add "doing a recording" to the composition of the daily main page?
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 22 April 2008 19:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal position of audio recordings of GFDLcontent?
On 22/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
You can't but assuming you are dealing with more normal people there are ways to do it.
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Not the problem you might think. Obviously it will limit the formats you can use. 45s and 78s are going to be basically unusable and 33s would be fairly borderline.
For CDs it is less of a problem. You have a single track dedicated to the legal stuff and everything else just as normal. If you want to put multiple articles onto a single CD then it would probably a be a good idea to take the approach of merging them into a single document. If you make a CD that is say a series of spoken versions of our US president articles then you are going to run into problems with the size of the article history but by using synthesised speech and dumping the lot on a separate CD it should be doable.
In the end it's just another version of the old overhead problem that means the GFDL is useless for postcards as well.
Invariant sections can of course case massive problems. If an invariant section is an image you are basically stuffed.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
No more than many EULAs
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with invariant sections as the GFDL.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Fantastic idea. Let's just remember to start modestly; otherwise it might fizzle out like some of the video efforts.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Let's run with the idea that provoked these questions to foundation-l, and to the FSF. The most apparent one to most people here is the Spoken Articles on Wikipedia. They're from GFDL material and looking at the license as it stands, none of the people drafting it dreamt an encyclopedia - let alone audio portions thereof - would ever exist and be covered by it. Perhaps it is fortuitous that this aspect has come up before the new license is in place? Perhaps there is a wider scope to consider in drafting it?
That "wider scope" is what one of the contributors to this discussion has highlighted as a seriously headache-forming area under current constraints, namely Radio. Trust me, dealing with a license that was drafted when hard-cased floppy disks were cutting-edge technology is going to give Mike Godwin headaches, not just the average list contributor.
So, yes, as a few people on a few of the non-WP projects are aware, the idea that provoked these questions was indeed radio. A 24/7 MediaWiki Radio service running Wikinews new pieces, spoken Wikipedia, music from Commons, Lectures workshops and tutorials from Wikiversity, Quote of the Day from Wikiquote, and "Book of the Month" from Wikisource. As the discussion on the Communications Committee list saw this labelled, "WikiRadio 4" (See WP article on BBC Radio 4").
What are people's thoughts on this? Kicking the idea about on Wikinews' Water Cooler has made it look that filling a repeated six or eight-hour schedule is achievable within a realistic timeframe. It does not conflict with projects getting off the ground to do podcasts, but would mean they'd need advised to start working towards fitting to broadcast time constraints as a way of having an eye on the future. Could we aim for a radio station for Wikimania 2008, with Spanish lessons broadcast in the preceding weeks/months? Could we persuade Wikipedia people to add "doing a recording" to the composition of the daily main page?
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 22 April 2008 19:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal position of audio recordings of GFDLcontent?
On 22/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
You can't but assuming you are dealing with more normal people there are ways to do it.
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Not the problem you might think. Obviously it will limit the formats you can use. 45s and 78s are going to be basically unusable and 33s would be fairly borderline.
For CDs it is less of a problem. You have a single track dedicated to the legal stuff and everything else just as normal. If you want to put multiple articles onto a single CD then it would probably a be a good idea to take the approach of merging them into a single document. If you make a CD that is say a series of spoken versions of our US president articles then you are going to run into problems with the size of the article history but by using synthesised speech and dumping the lot on a separate CD it should be doable.
In the end it's just another version of the old overhead problem that means the GFDL is useless for postcards as well.
Invariant sections can of course case massive problems. If an invariant section is an image you are basically stuffed.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
No more than many EULAs
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with invariant sections as the GFDL.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Of course, and I meant Wikimania 2009 not '08.
Can someone tell me who would be a good couple of people from the WP podcasts and front page management to talk to?
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pharos Sent: 24 April 2008 03:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position of audiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
Fantastic idea. Let's just remember to start modestly; otherwise it might fizzle out like some of the video efforts.
Thanks, Pharos
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Let's run with the idea that provoked these questions to foundation-l, and to the FSF. The most apparent one to most people here is the Spoken
Articles
on Wikipedia. They're from GFDL material and looking at the license as it stands, none of the people drafting it dreamt an encyclopedia - let alone audio portions thereof - would ever exist and be covered by it. Perhaps
it
is fortuitous that this aspect has come up before the new license is in place? Perhaps there is a wider scope to consider in drafting it?
That "wider scope" is what one of the contributors to this discussion has highlighted as a seriously headache-forming area under current
constraints,
namely Radio. Trust me, dealing with a license that was drafted when hard-cased floppy disks were cutting-edge technology is going to give
Mike
Godwin headaches, not just the average list contributor.
So, yes, as a few people on a few of the non-WP projects are aware, the
idea
that provoked these questions was indeed radio. A 24/7 MediaWiki Radio service running Wikinews new pieces, spoken Wikipedia, music from
Commons,
Lectures workshops and tutorials from Wikiversity, Quote of the Day from Wikiquote, and "Book of the Month" from Wikisource. As the discussion on
the
Communications Committee list saw this labelled, "WikiRadio 4" (See WP article on BBC Radio 4").
What are people's thoughts on this? Kicking the idea about on Wikinews' Water Cooler has made it look that filling a repeated six or eight-hour schedule is achievable within a realistic timeframe. It does not conflict with projects getting off the ground to do podcasts, but would mean
they'd
need advised to start working towards fitting to broadcast time
constraints
as a way of having an eye on the future. Could we aim for a radio station for Wikimania 2008, with Spanish lessons broadcast in the preceding weeks/months? Could we persuade Wikipedia people to add "doing a
recording"
to the composition of the daily main page?
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 22 April 2008 19:37 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal position of audio recordings of GFDLcontent?
On 22/04/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
One important question: how do you manage GFDL on spoken text? To the satisfaction of, e.g., querulous Commons admins who deal with licensing stupidities all the time? (Geni, I'm looking at you ;-) )
You can't but assuming you are dealing with more normal people there are ways to do it.
Requiring a reading of the license on the end of all audios is onerous. Our many spoken articles on English Wikipedia are (presumably) not a violation as long as they're on Wikipedia, with the license text a link away - but aren't really unencumbered for use elsewhere.
Not the problem you might think. Obviously it will limit the formats you can use. 45s and 78s are going to be basically unusable and 33s would be fairly borderline.
For CDs it is less of a problem. You have a single track dedicated to the legal stuff and everything else just as normal. If you want to put multiple articles onto a single CD then it would probably a be a good idea to take the approach of merging them into a single document. If you make a CD that is say a series of spoken versions of our US president articles then you are going to run into problems with the size of the article history but by using synthesised speech and dumping the lot on a separate CD it should be doable.
In the end it's just another version of the old overhead problem that means the GFDL is useless for postcards as well.
Invariant sections can of course case massive problems. If an invariant section is an image you are basically stuffed.
Is the GFDL fundamentally discriminatory against the blind?
No more than many EULAs
This in itself IMO is a strong case for porting to CC-by-sa.
Still runs into issues when faced with large numbers of authors. "keep intact all copyright notices for the Work" has the same problem with invariant sections as the GFDL.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Of course, and I meant Wikimania 2009 not '08.
Can someone tell me who would be a good couple of people from the WP podcasts and front page management to talk to?
You can contact me (User:Fuzheado) or User:Tawker.
I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you start small and grow bigger. No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero hours now. As the longest running regularly published audio product in the Wikipedia universe, believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
Likely the best approach would be to have segments broken down into different chunks, not unlike what US NPR does with its twice daily news update, Morning Edition, Day to Day, etc. Each one can be an independent chunk that can be downloaded via RSS like on iTunes as a podcast. Then you stack all the canned audio segments together and have it available from an Icecast streaming server which can stream Ogg format audio for example.
That way you can make three audiences happy simultaneously: 1. Podcast downloaders 2. Streaming audio fans (like Shoutcast) 3. Web-browser based listeners
I'll comment on Wikinews Water Cooler as well.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
Thanks for taking an interest!
I agree that eight hours is more of a long-term goal, but I do have my concerns that if we're going for podcasts as an interim, we may get stuck at podcasts and not progress.
Instead, I'd go for doing podcasts in conjunction with getting the technical hurdles overcome. As soon as we're in a position to start streaming, we do. It may just be a random player of Commons music as the 0.01 version of the project, but from there we start scheduling things in from the existing material: The Wikinews news briefs, the Wikiversity lessons/courses in doing audio, Wikipedia podcasts, etc. For things like the podcasts from Wikipedia, it might be an idea to actually only run them on one or two days. So, you schedule them to run three times in the 24 hours that is Sunday, and same for Wednesday. That in itself is - I believe - quite an achievable goal.
That brings us to the key issue in progressing beyond podcasts, the technical side. You mention IceCast, which might suit if we have people sitting down and doing a schedule, so I'm going to hit their #icecast channel on Freenode and point them at the idea. For reasons that should be obvious, I'd want the system running off a text schedule in a wiki.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Lih Sent: 24 April 2008 09:43 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Cc: Liam Wyatt; Tawker Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
Of course, and I meant Wikimania 2009 not '08.
Can someone tell me who would be a good couple of people from the WP podcasts and front page management to talk to?
You can contact me (User:Fuzheado) or User:Tawker.
I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you start small and grow bigger. No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero hours now. As the longest running regularly published audio product in the Wikipedia universe, believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
Likely the best approach would be to have segments broken down into different chunks, not unlike what US NPR does with its twice daily news update, Morning Edition, Day to Day, etc. Each one can be an independent chunk that can be downloaded via RSS like on iTunes as a podcast. Then you stack all the canned audio segments together and have it available from an Icecast streaming server which can stream Ogg format audio for example.
That way you can make three audiences happy simultaneously: 1. Podcast downloaders 2. Streaming audio fans (like Shoutcast) 3. Web-browser based listeners
I'll comment on Wikinews Water Cooler as well.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 24/04/2008, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you start small and grow bigger. No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero hours now. As the longest running regularly published audio product in the Wikipedia universe, believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
Yeah. Anyone who's done public radio knows what a commitment a weekly radio show is.
- d.
In trying to lay out an eight-hour schedule, I'm trying to lay out a framework to work within and a goal to aim for. This doesn't preclude doing podcasts right now, in fact doing them would be eminently sensible. You've just got to do them with an eye to a future where you can download them from a WMF server, catch them on our Internet radio service, or any other number of ways of getting at the content. You need to work to a more strict timescale and be able to swap in and out different intro/outro pieces for the context the material is presented in.
So, on one track we work on all these, "please be less ambitious" sides of the argument. People do their podcasts and recordings as they would, but perhaps with reference to time constraints that might apply in a radio environment. Where building a library of timeless material is feasible, it gets done.
Then there's the technical side of this. It certainly isn't going to happen overnight, a lot of "glue" software would need written to keep to a seamless schedule. With some of the things I see in WMF press releases we'd really be looking to run a lot of software that currently has no connection whatsoever with MediaWiki. To oversimplify to the point that a developer would wake in a cold sweat, we need an extension; one that can feed data out of a wiki and into a content generator that interfaces with a broadcast server. From some poking around that'd be Icecast and Liquidsoap. The MW extension would need to control Liquidsoap; send queries and accept responses from it as to what to play next.
To state the obvious, the majority of the development time on something like this is going to have to come out of the community. Brion and his merry men are probably up to their asses in alligators trying to make sure SUL and Flagged Revisions go off smoothly. What I think is the good news is that when we do get them to look at this FLOSS stack for radio, it certainly appears to have been set up with the WMF in mind. It has a version that reminds me of squid proxies, and it looks like you could almost run this cache system as close as the last mile and have ISPs with their own server providing the stream and their main line kept free for other stuff.
When the technology is in place, we start streaming. I'll be honest, if it's all Commons music to start with I don't care. Obviously, I want to see Wikinews doing the top of the hour headlines at this point, but the relevance of that is only going to increase as we bring in other projects and expand the content. The beta should see the "how to do audio" lessons from Wikiversity broadcast throughout a segment; stick in the Wikipedia podcasts on a Sunday with a Wednesday repeat... You've a radio station. If we can get to that point I think we've a project that will just grow naturally.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 24 April 2008 11:06 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
On 24/04/2008, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you start small and grow
bigger.
No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero hours now. As the longest running regularly published audio product in the Wikipedia
universe,
believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
Yeah. Anyone who's done public radio knows what a commitment a weekly radio show is.
- d.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
When the technology is in place, we start streaming. I'll be honest, if it's all Commons music to start with I don't care. Obviously, I want to see Wikinews doing the top of the hour headlines at this point, but the relevance of that is only going to increase as we bring in other projects and expand the content. The beta should see the "how to do audio" lessons from Wikiversity broadcast throughout a segment; stick in the Wikipedia podcasts on a Sunday with a Wednesday repeat... You've a radio station. If we can get to that point I think we've a project that will just grow naturally.
It's a great idea, and I'm really happy to see such positive reception. I've pointed out to Brian and on the Wikinews page - so I should also point out here - that there's been an initiative to develop a radio station on Wikiversity for some time now: < http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wiki_Campus_Radio%3E. So far, this has mainly consisted of testing VoIP technology (Asterisk) as a means of sharing ideas, and using the recorded sessions as basis for further learning material. Momentum has waxed and waned, and there was significant input from the WikiCast people when that project was up and running - but this project might be just what Wikiversity's project needs to get a better focus. I still have a question, however (which Brian and others have been addressing on Wikinews): will this be a project independent of Wikimedia servers (a la Wikipedia Weekly), will it be a project aligned to a particular Wikimedia project, or will it be a separate Wikimedia project?
Cormac
2008/4/24 Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com:
I still have a question, however (which Brian and others have been addressing on Wikinews): will this be a project independent of Wikimedia servers (a la Wikipedia Weekly), will it be a project aligned to a particular Wikimedia project, or will it be a separate Wikimedia project?
1. What's its anticipated server CPU and bandwidth load? 2. What legal system will it be under, and what are the regulations for web radio stations under that system?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2008/4/24 Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com:
I still have a question, however (which Brian and others have been
addressing
on Wikinews): will this be a project independent of Wikimedia servers (a
la
Wikipedia Weekly), will it be a project aligned to a particular
Wikimedia
project, or will it be a separate Wikimedia project?
I see no reason to do this outside the auspices of the WMF. The path may involve outside servers to do analysis and pilot work, but the final aim should be something integrated with the WMF infrastructure.
That means following NPOV where possible, so a lot of the "talking heads" stuff people seem to think would get done is out.
- What's its anticipated server CPU and bandwidth load?
No idea. Will ask around.
- What legal system will it be under, and what are the regulations
for web radio stations under that system?
I'd assume the same as any other WMF project; I've no intention of starting up "Radio Free Belgium" for this. Since that means Florida law, I'm not sure of the legal issues, I do suspect the worst would be convincing people we didn't have to pay for use of commercial music.
Brian McNeil
It you need more content; all the recordings at LibriVox.org are public domain. I believe they considered a copy-left license but because of the difficulties outlined in the beginning of this thread they went public domain. So you might want to contact them on their thoughts about licenssing as well.
Birgitte SB
--- On Thu, 4/24/08, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
From: Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent? To: "'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 11:56 AM In trying to lay out an eight-hour schedule, I'm trying to lay out a framework to work within and a goal to aim for. This doesn't preclude doing podcasts right now, in fact doing them would be eminently sensible. You've just got to do them with an eye to a future where you can download them from a WMF server, catch them on our Internet radio service, or any other number of ways of getting at the content. You need to work to a more strict timescale and be able to swap in and out different intro/outro pieces for the context the material is presented in.
So, on one track we work on all these, "please be less ambitious" sides of the argument. People do their podcasts and recordings as they would, but perhaps with reference to time constraints that might apply in a radio environment. Where building a library of timeless material is feasible, it gets done.
Then there's the technical side of this. It certainly isn't going to happen overnight, a lot of "glue" software would need written to keep to a seamless schedule. With some of the things I see in WMF press releases we'd really be looking to run a lot of software that currently has no connection whatsoever with MediaWiki. To oversimplify to the point that a developer would wake in a cold sweat, we need an extension; one that can feed data out of a wiki and into a content generator that interfaces with a broadcast server. From some poking around that'd be Icecast and Liquidsoap. The MW extension would need to control Liquidsoap; send queries and accept responses from it as to what to play next.
To state the obvious, the majority of the development time on something like this is going to have to come out of the community. Brion and his merry men are probably up to their asses in alligators trying to make sure SUL and Flagged Revisions go off smoothly. What I think is the good news is that when we do get them to look at this FLOSS stack for radio, it certainly appears to have been set up with the WMF in mind. It has a version that reminds me of squid proxies, and it looks like you could almost run this cache system as close as the last mile and have ISPs with their own server providing the stream and their main line kept free for other stuff.
When the technology is in place, we start streaming. I'll be honest, if it's all Commons music to start with I don't care. Obviously, I want to see Wikinews doing the top of the hour headlines at this point, but the relevance of that is only going to increase as we bring in other projects and expand the content. The beta should see the "how to do audio" lessons from Wikiversity broadcast throughout a segment; stick in the Wikipedia podcasts on a Sunday with a Wednesday repeat... You've a radio station. If we can get to that point I think we've a project that will just grow naturally.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 24 April 2008 11:06 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
On 24/04/2008, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you
start small and grow bigger.
No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero
hours now. As the
longest running regularly published audio product in
the Wikipedia universe,
believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
Yeah. Anyone who's done public radio knows what a commitment a weekly radio show is.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Thanks for the suggestion! At the moment I've been trying to get other people thinking about the content side while I go play at 'herding cats' to get the technical side designed, if not developed.
It looks like we run Icecast as the stream server (which supports relays just like the MediaWiki/Squid relationship), we feed content into that from another FLOSS package called Liquidsoap. And - the good part - the Savonet community that maintains Liquidsoap thinks this is a very interesting idea and developing software to run their package from playlists in a wiki would simply be commonsense. One of them is currently knocking together a prototype to do this, and I believe he can do so, among the other FLOSS oddjobs he does is packaging MW with Debian.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Birgitte SB Sent: 25 April 2008 15:11 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal positionofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
It you need more content; all the recordings at LibriVox.org are public domain. I believe they considered a copy-left license but because of the difficulties outlined in the beginning of this thread they went public domain. So you might want to contact them on their thoughts about licenssing as well.
Birgitte SB
--- On Thu, 4/24/08, Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
From: Brian McNeil brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position
ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
To: "'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'"
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 11:56 AM In trying to lay out an eight-hour schedule, I'm trying to lay out a framework to work within and a goal to aim for. This doesn't preclude doing podcasts right now, in fact doing them would be eminently sensible. You've just got to do them with an eye to a future where you can download them from a WMF server, catch them on our Internet radio service, or any other number of ways of getting at the content. You need to work to a more strict timescale and be able to swap in and out different intro/outro pieces for the context the material is presented in.
So, on one track we work on all these, "please be less ambitious" sides of the argument. People do their podcasts and recordings as they would, but perhaps with reference to time constraints that might apply in a radio environment. Where building a library of timeless material is feasible, it gets done.
Then there's the technical side of this. It certainly isn't going to happen overnight, a lot of "glue" software would need written to keep to a seamless schedule. With some of the things I see in WMF press releases we'd really be looking to run a lot of software that currently has no connection whatsoever with MediaWiki. To oversimplify to the point that a developer would wake in a cold sweat, we need an extension; one that can feed data out of a wiki and into a content generator that interfaces with a broadcast server. From some poking around that'd be Icecast and Liquidsoap. The MW extension would need to control Liquidsoap; send queries and accept responses from it as to what to play next.
To state the obvious, the majority of the development time on something like this is going to have to come out of the community. Brion and his merry men are probably up to their asses in alligators trying to make sure SUL and Flagged Revisions go off smoothly. What I think is the good news is that when we do get them to look at this FLOSS stack for radio, it certainly appears to have been set up with the WMF in mind. It has a version that reminds me of squid proxies, and it looks like you could almost run this cache system as close as the last mile and have ISPs with their own server providing the stream and their main line kept free for other stuff.
When the technology is in place, we start streaming. I'll be honest, if it's all Commons music to start with I don't care. Obviously, I want to see Wikinews doing the top of the hour headlines at this point, but the relevance of that is only going to increase as we bring in other projects and expand the content. The beta should see the "how to do audio" lessons from Wikiversity broadcast throughout a segment; stick in the Wikipedia podcasts on a Sunday with a Wednesday repeat... You've a radio station. If we can get to that point I think we've a project that will just grow naturally.
Brian McNeil -----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: 24 April 2008 11:06 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wimimedia Radio WAS:RE: Legal position ofaudiorecordings of GFDLcontent?
On 24/04/2008, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's an admirable idea, and suggest you
start small and grow bigger.
No need for 8 hours off the bat, when there are zero
hours now. As the
longest running regularly published audio product in
the Wikipedia universe,
believe me when I say it is quite an undertaking.
Yeah. Anyone who's done public radio knows what a commitment a weekly radio show is.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org