On 1/26/08, Kpjas kpj@gower.pl wrote:

Dwa linki nt. tej współpracy

http://www.kaltura.com/devwiki/index.php/Main_Page i http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Invites_Users_to_Take_Part_in_...

Mam wrażenie, że spijacie bezwiednie propagandę z Wikimedia Foundation jak oseski mleko, więc chciałbym zaproponować lepsze linki (wybrałem na szybko co smakowitsze cytaty, polecam oczywiście przeczytać każdy link w całości, wraz z komentarzami):

* blog Kelly Martin http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-foundation-funding-... http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-on-kaltura.html : "In order to make any use of this product, you must accept that all of your video content will be hosted on their site using proprietary software which is not being made available to you, and which they may take away, destroy, or discard at any time without notice to you. In short, you can use it as long as you hand over all control to them." (...) "Calling this project "open source" is disingenuous, too. The only part that is open sourced is the thin client, which they've only open sourced in order to make it compatible with MediaWiki's licensing, and to allow them to offload the hosting of the client to Sourceforge. Basically they're open source pretenders."

(Kelly Martin to "nawrócona" na właściwą drogę (tzn. wikikrytyczną ;->) wikipedystka (i właściwie były wikipedysta też ;>), (chyba była) administratorka, była też w ArbComie w którejś kadencji, o ile dobrze pamiętam).

* Gregory Maxwell na wikitech-l, w wątku "[Wikitech-l] [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Invites Users to Take Part in Open, Collaborative Video Experiment", np.: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-January/035976.html : "One multimedia free software developer said to me about the press release 'it may be slightly more accurate if you replace every instance of "open" with the word "flash" ;)'

As a long time contributor to the Wikimedia projects in many capacities, have to say that I found the press release to be misleading and somewhat disingenuous." (...) "I am especially disappointed to see Wikimedia promoting a technology which depends on a proprietary format which can not be reimplemented without patent encumbered technology, especially when a substantial portion of the functionality could be provided with standards driven technology already available in the users browsers."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2008-January/035986.html : "I don't agree here. The press release says open about a zillion times, but the existing level of openness is not especially high. I think it is misleading, and so do a number of outside parties who have a high degree of expertise in web media."

Chyba też na swoim blogu wyprodukuję kiedyś jakiś post na ten temat, bo co jak co, ale Flashowego syfu w Wikipedii chyba nie zniosę... (Wanted, może coś skrobniesz na swoim blogu w tym temacie? Może coś w guście "Wikipedia lamerzy", gdzie przypomnisz, że Flash nie jest otwartym formatem i w ogóle... A, przepraszam, tego pewnie nie napiszesz, bo lamerzy to mogą być wszyscy inni, tylko nie Wikipedia...).