On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:23:14 +0100, Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Dori wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:15:44 +0100, Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote: snip
The question is: Is forcing them to do this a big deal? You appear to say no it isn't. I would disagree and say yes it IS a big deal. Many, many web users CAN NOT update software on their computer (virtually anyone on a locally managed network: school, library, office, cybercafe etc) because they do not have the rights to do so. Only home users would.
No the question is, do we inconvenience Windows users to download a legal and free plugin, or do we force FOSS users get illegal/pay software?
[This is getting a little away from the remit of the technical mailing list, perhaps follow up at wikipedia-l?]
I must protest a little bit. You selectively edit my post in order to suggest something that I am not, then attack me for it. I was talking solely in the context of Windows - raising some points that Jimbo may not have been aware and then saying "the question is are those points important?" This is plainly different from suggesting that Windows users are the only people we care about. Remember that James's initial post was about creating a migration path.
I snipped it because I don't like replying at the bottom of a long text. Your original post is on the mailing list for anyone to read so it's not like I'm hiding anything.
I most certainly was not attacking you, but the idea of using non-free media. I have no ill-regard towards you whatsoever, but I am dead set against that non-free media. It's not like we don't have a choice, and it's not like it's a hard choice. I will never be for convenience (read lazyness) over openess. I have had to read Wikipedia from public workstations where you can't install anything many times. Let me tell you, those comp's don't even have speakers. They probably can't play mp3's or video either. So the questions is just do we inconvenience a few windows users, and I say we definitely should. In the end, we teach them to use the best tools out there. If people weren't so complacent and lazy we wouldn't have to deal with non-standard web sites out there, and the crap-for-a-program that is IE. I don't want Wikipedia to become another IE/DVD/CSS debacle.
Note: we bend over backwards to support all major browsers (minimizing JavaScript etc) because most people cannot change their browser. Yet when we come to sound, we are changing tack.
Do we force people to pay for content or have them view it illegally (well maybe we do when it comes to fair use, but that's a different argument)?
Whether this consideration is sufficiently strong in order for us to consider allowing other formats, I'm not sure. But it is worth bearing in mind before going GNUng-ho into going ogg-only.
We're not GNUng-ho for the sake of being GNUng-ho, there actually are some sound reasons behind it (like the whole GFDL concept vs copyrighting everything ala Britannica). Do we want to impose a DVD/CSS style hassle on our users?
It appears you can _play_ MP3s libreally and gratisly. The difficulty is creating them. Thus as long as the uploader "signs" to say they have done so legally, then the migration path that allows dual formats (even of the same piece) might be an option.
My understanding is that you can play them gratis, but the producers of the player that you are using must have payed a fee. But even if it is just for encoding, do we want to have our editors spend money to splice together or edit some GFDL sounds?
I just don't see how people could be for the GFDL, but against OGG? It's the same principle, namely openess and freedom.