How many people at WMF consider their opinion's to be "official" ? :) I think there are two issues for a proprietary -> non-proprietary converter: 1. The conversion software itself must be FLOSS. 2. The format being converted must have an open specification (Flash being a good example of one that might be allowed to be converted). On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:41 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

We should do this (reencode all major formats to ogg). It would absolutely make more educational material available to commons. We can make the service available at a reasonable rate now without worrying about what happens when thousands of uploaders use it every day, and deal with issues as they arise. As for legal concerns, Dailymotion is managing bulk conversion just fine. We can ask them if they have to jump through any hoops. SJ On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 1:25 PM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2009/6/7 Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie(a)googlemail.com>om>: Archive.org is of course a charity too. Does anyone know the arrangement allowing them to do this? - d.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Robert Rohde<rarohde(a)gmail.com> wrote: Just to be clear, there are potential fees along all the food chain, i.e. encoding, decoding, and distribution. I picked on distribution because it was the one I knew off-hand. Since David is talking about decoding and re-encoding as Ogg, there would be a different set of fees to consider which I haven't looked at. -Robert Rohde

I am definitely not opposed to adding in that functionality as I have mentioned in the past: see thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg00888.html You should take a look at the work Mike Baynton did back in summer of code 07. The issue that we have is both the Bottlenecks you mentioned. Where possible we want to crowd source the transcoding costs and we have a working firefogg support which we can more aggressively push out once firefox 3.5 lands. Essentially wikimedia commons is not designed to support hosting the raw footage. Other like-minded organizations like archive.org that have peta-bytes of storage across thousands of storage nodes are better positioned to act as a host for raw footage and its derivatives. Additional commons is a "strict" archive where files not licensed properly often get removed where archive.org can act as a more permanent storage space while license issues are sorted out. Since wikimedia projects will shortly be supporting linline searching time segment grabbing from archive.org material its maybe not so critical that we create and host the transcoding infrastructure ourselves. Although as you mention it would be nice to support transocoding on wikimedias servers for uploading short clips from cell-phone type cases. --michael David Gerard wrote:

2009/6/8 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>: Hard drives are cheap, the WMF can just buy more if that is all that is needed.

2009/6/8 Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu>du>: Yes, that's true - easily re-encoding proprietary formats to an Ogg on Commonsn will lead to people loading Commons with lovely video. Mind you, the Wikimedians could do that with Firefogg. OTOH, hands up all those who have FF 3.5? (raises hand) And who's installed Firefogg? (puts hand down) - d.

I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff and the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say majority), though. It seems like a lot less work to solve the recoding problem, and anyway, there is a lot of content that has yet to be produced to worry about. Sticking to the ideals no matter what will help more of that free content in free formats be produced in the future when there are more people around to do the creating. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro(a)gmail.com

Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck the wrong chord with you? On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > Brian wrote: > > I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed > > content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any > > format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff > and > > the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say majority), > > though. > > > I think this is the exact opposite of what I wished to convey. > > I do not hold we should accept non-free content. I don't hold > that view. Period. > > But if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the > encoding, we should embrace and liberate it from those > bonds. > > That is all. > > > It seems like a lot less work to solve the recoding > > problem, and anyway, there is a lot of content that has yet to be > > produced to worry about. Sticking to the ideals no matter what will > > help more of that free content in free formats be produced in the > > future when there are more people around to do the > > creating. > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Tim Starling wrote: > >> > >>> Some people in the community take the view that supporting proprietary > >>> standards, as an option alongside free standards, weakens the ability > >>> of the free standards to compete for mindshare and client support, and > >>> thus that it shouldn't be done. We would have to have that discussion, > >>> and possibly a vote on the issue, before deployment of any software > >>> solution. But the software should come first, at the very least it > >>> will be useful to support alternate free formats such as Dirac, Speex > >>> and FLAC. > >>> > >>> > >> I don't know who "Some people in the community" are, > >> but just in case they are anything like myself, who does > >> hold a view not entirely distant from the one you describe... > >> > >> The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered > >> material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was > >> being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no > >> matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered > >> format version. > >> > >> > >> Yours in deep amity; > >> > >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

How is that different from: "[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we should embrace [...]" On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > Brian wrote: > > Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck > > the wrong chord with you? > > > I think it is the " we should accept free content in any format." > bit. ;-) > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Brian wrote: > >> > >>> I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely > licensed > >>> content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any > >>> format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff > >>> > >> and > >> > >>> the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say > majority), > >>> though. > >>> > >>> > >> I think this is the exact opposite of what I wished to convey. > >> > >> I do not hold we should accept non-free content. I don't hold > >> that view. Period. > >> > >> But if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the > >> encoding, we should embrace and liberate it from those > >> bonds. > >> > >> That is all. > >> > >> > >>> It seems like a lot less work to solve the recoding > >>> problem, and anyway, there is a lot of content that has yet to be > >>> produced to worry about. Sticking to the ideals no matter what will > >>> help more of that free content in free formats be produced in the > >>> future when there are more people around to do the > >>> creating. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > >>> > >> cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > >> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Tim Starling wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Some people in the community take the view that supporting > proprietary > >>>>> standards, as an option alongside free standards, weakens the ability > >>>>> of the free standards to compete for mindshare and client support, > and > >>>>> thus that it shouldn't be done. We would have to have that > discussion, > >>>>> and possibly a vote on the issue, before deployment of any software > >>>>> solution. But the software should come first, at the very least it > >>>>> will be useful to support alternate free formats such as Dirac, Speex > >>>>> and FLAC. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> I don't know who "Some people in the community" are, > >>>> but just in case they are anything like myself, who does > >>>> hold a view not entirely distant from the one you describe... > >>>> > >>>> The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered > >>>> material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was > >>>> being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no > >>>> matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered > >>>> format version. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yours in deep amity; > >>>> > >>>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> foundation-l mailing list > >>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> foundation-l mailing list > >>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

Yes, but you also said: "The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered format version." I'm quite sure that the net sum of what you've said and i've said is equal. On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > Brian wrote: > > How is that different from: > > "[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we > > should embrace [...]" > > > > > You forgot the bit about liberating it. > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > > > >> >> > > > > > >> Brian wrote: > >> > >>> Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment > struck > >>> the wrong chord with you? > >>> > >>> > >> I think it is the " we should accept free content in any format." > >> bit. ;-) > >> > >>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > >>> > >> cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > >> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> Brian wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely > >>>>> > >> licensed > >> > >>>>> content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any > >>>>> format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation > staff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> and > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say > >>>>> > >> majority), > >> > >>>>> though. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> I think this is the exact opposite of what I wished to convey. > >>>> > >>>> I do not hold we should accept non-free content. I don't hold > >>>> that view. Period. > >>>> > >>>> But if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the > >>>> encoding, we should embrace and liberate it from those > >>>> bonds. > >>>> > >>>> That is all. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> It seems like a lot less work to solve the recoding > >>>>> problem, and anyway, there is a lot of content that has yet to be > >>>>> produced to worry about. Sticking to the ideals no matter what will > >>>>> help more of that free content in free formats be produced in the > >>>>> future when there are more people around to do the > >>>>> creating. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> cimonavaro(a)gmail.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Tim Starling wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Some people in the community take the view that supporting > >>>>>>> > >> proprietary > >> > >>>>>>> standards, as an option alongside free standards, weakens the > ability > >>>>>>> of the free standards to compete for mindshare and client support, > >>>>>>> > >> and > >> > >>>>>>> thus that it shouldn't be done. We would have to have that > >>>>>>> > >> discussion, > >> > >>>>>>> and possibly a vote on the issue, before deployment of any software > >>>>>>> solution. But the software should come first, at the very least it > >>>>>>> will be useful to support alternate free formats such as Dirac, > Speex > >>>>>>> and FLAC. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't know who "Some people in the community" are, > >>>>>> but just in case they are anything like myself, who does > >>>>>> hold a view not entirely distant from the one you describe... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered > >>>>>> material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was > >>>>>> being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no > >>>>>> matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered > >>>>>> format version. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yours in deep amity; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> foundation-l mailing list > >>>>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>>>> Unsubscribe: > >>>>>> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> foundation-l mailing list > >>>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>>> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> foundation-l mailing list > >>>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>>> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> foundation-l mailing list > >>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> foundation-l mailing list > >> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 14:54, David Gerard&lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: As another tidbit, I have a music player ("mp3 player") which records and plays ogg (not Theora though). :-) But you're right, most users haven't even heard about vorbis and theora. And phone recordings won't show any quality loss anyway since, well... erm... g

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 16:06, Tim Starling&lt;tstarling(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Good in theory, but how many people are prepared to upload videos in original format? It is most of the time even uncompressed, like DV, and may add up to even a few gigabytes. (I don't remember, but I believe it was around a gigabyte per minute or so.) And it requires an enermous amount of storage space too. Still I may be completely wrong since I have never checked how long videos do we possess on average. And naturally this method (that we convert lossy from original excellnt quality masters) is the best, since then we control the output format and not the uploader. -- byte-byte, grin

Firefogg is not a very usable solution for most users. It requires far too much sophistication. Users should be able to just upload video that they know is under a free license and then everything else happens on the backend. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Michael Dale &lt;mdale(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

Michael Dale wrote: For windows users with a different browser, we could provide a One-click install of Firefox with Firerfogg for easy upload (or perhaps with a more specific xulrunner interface). Not sure if it's also worth for Mac. It probably isn't for Linux.