Simultaneous send to wikitech-l, foundation-l, and commons-l
Hi folks,
Yesterday the Wikimedia Foundation, Kaltura, and WikiEducator made a combined announcement about our beta collaborative video project. You can see the announcement here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Invites_Users_to_Take_Part_in_...
The Foundation has set up a landing page here:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Collaborative_Video
with more background and information. We'll keep it updated regularly.
WikiEducator has done the same here:
http://wikieducator.org/Help:Collaborative_video
with specific instructions on how to participate in the beta.
Through this project the parties will be able to explore the potential for developing open-source, collaborative video or slideshows for the Foundation's projects. Collaborative video is simply a collection of images, video, and sound edited and combined by one or more collaborators.
The technology, which many of you may already be familiar with, will be demonstrated on WikiEducator - which is not a WMF project. Those of us involved in the Wikimedia Foundation projects will have a chance to examine the software, test its limits, and ultimately improve our ability to bring multi-media, free knowledge content to our users. We recognize that Kaltura's software and interface are still not 100% open-source, and as such the technology will not appear on any Foundation projects until we've worked through some of the technical challenges - which is where you come in.
Kaltura has released their code to the open-source community to help this project along. It's available on SourceForge,
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kaltura .
We're excited that an innovative, private business has taken strong initiative in embracing open-source development.
You're invited to examine the code, test the technology as it exists on WikiEducator, and help us bring this functionality to the Wikimedia Foundation projects over the coming months. You'll find a feedback process on the WikiEducator landing page, and of course we fully welcome discussion about the technology on the lists.
Thanks,
On Jan 18, 2008 3:07 PM, Jay A. Walsh jwalsh@wikimedia.org wrote: [snip]
ability to bring multi-media, free knowledge content to our users. We recognize that Kaltura's software and interface are still not 100% open-source, and as such the technology will not appear on any Foundation projects until we've worked through some of the technical challenges - which is where you come in.
Hi Jay,
This would appear to be your first post, so welcome to the lists...
I understand that you are new here, so you may need the time to collect the background information, but I think that I, and other contributors, need to have a clear explanation as to why the Wikimedia Foundation is calling for volunteer resources for this project when it has failed to call for any resources, or bring any attention at all, to the existing slideshow functionality which our own users have developed.
While the JavaScript slideshow software developed by our own users lacks the special effects of Kaltura., it has the advantage of requiring no proprietary software. It also integrates with the existing MediaWiki software in a scalable manner and leverages our revision control technology and user experiences. For most of the Wikimedia projects it can be argued that a simple javascript slideshow is actually a better fit for our needs.
I think we also would like to know how the Kaltura product is ever expected to be "100%" free in accordance with our practice of only integrating free tools when it has a fundamental requirement on Adobe Flash, a proprietary format which can not be completely implemented without using patented technologies. I ask this not to be confrontational, but because it is a serious point which I have been asked about which I am unable to answer. 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.
Kaltura has released their code to the open-source community to help this project along. It's available on SourceForge,
Unfortunately the released system is far from complete: For example, Mediawiki Integration is achieved by simply embedding material from the Kaltura site. This is very similar to a number of pre-existing youtube extensions. (Such as http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:YouTubeTag). There really isn't much to contribute to such an extension.
The player code in svn also contains a number of third part copyrighted components which I am reasonably confident that Kaltura does not have the rights to release under a free license. (I'm sure this is an honest error, but its still worth mentioning)
You're invited to examine the code, test the technology as it exists on WikiEducator, and help us bring this functionality to the Wikimedia Foundation projects over the coming months. You'll find a feedback process on the WikiEducator landing page, and of course we fully welcome discussion about the technology on the lists.
Beyond the Mediawiki extension, which as I said above is little more than a embed shim, they have released some flash code. Unfortunately the flash code can not be built with open tools, so the overwhelming majority of our users couldn't reasonably contribute to that part of the software without undertaking unreasonable costs.
We're excited that an innovative, private business has taken strong initiative in embracing open-source development.
I'm disappointed to see that the Wikimedia foundation has yet again missed an effort to use its viability, both internally to the community and externally, to promote pre-existing community driven software initiatives.
A pattern of promoting the "prodigal sons" of the proprietary-cum-kinda-free world over out own contributors and developers is a dangerous
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.
In the future I hope the Foundation will first seek community input on technology partnerships: A flash slideshow editor isn't anything anyone here has been asking for, as far as I can tell... But we have thousands of other widely desired features, many of which could have substantial external components ripe for partnership. By asking the community you could also learn of our preexisting work in various areas.
I'd also like to see a solution to the issue of developer representation at Wikimania. Commercial interests are generally able to afford to send representation to Wikimania, while many highly relevant open source projects are not.
Thank you for your time.
On Jan 18, 2008 4:02 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I think we also would like to know how the Kaltura product is ever expected to be "100%" free in accordance with our practice of only integrating free tools when it has a fundamental requirement on Adobe Flash, a proprietary format which can not be completely implemented without using patented technologies.
I have to echo this in particular, as well as the rest of Gregory's post. It seems to me that any conceivable web-viewable content we would like to provide to our viewers could easily be implemented using some combination of HTML, CSS, various image formats, JavaScript, and -- if necessary, for heavy-weight stuff -- Java. All of these are free and open-source except Java, which still has some proprietary components that Sun has pledged to get rewritten as open-source (so that's not *quite* ideal, but hopefully getting there).
In this particular instance, as Gregory says, I don't see anything at all that requires the involvement of Flash or other proprietary technologies. JavaScript should be perfectly sufficient, and apparently there's substantial existing community work already.
On 1/18/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I'm disappointed to see that the Wikimedia foundation has yet again missed an effort to use its viability, both internally to the community and externally, to promote pre-existing community driven
As has been pointed out many times, there is no exclusivity here. Just last December, Sue & I allocated a substantial piece of our Wikiversity presentation time at Stanford to let Michael Dale talk about MetaVid; we're hosting it in our SVN repository, and I've also offered that we would endorse grant proposals or be happy to support the project in other reasonable ways. It's not mature enough for real world deployment on WMF sites; nor is Kaltura.
I'm not going to argue with you about the technical merits of either approach. There's no point in doing so: I am happy to let the open source ecosystem compete for the most viable solution. Your arguments regarding volunteer time are questionable at best; people will either choose not to participate for the reasons you've given or others, or if they do, then we can assume that they have made up their own mind. We're quite transparent about what Kaltura is and what it isn't.
Putting out a press release and inviting users to participate in an external beta test in order to incentivize open source and open standards within previously proprietary technology is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and I'll be happy for us to do it again if and when the opportunity arises again. It's in line with our mission and our values: free culture is an open movement that reaches out to others, rather than excluding them, in an effort to transform society.
The Wikimedia Foundation is not an isolationist organization. We don't want to be an island -- we want to be the ocean.
On Jan 19, 2008 2:13 AM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
As has been pointed out many times, there is no exclusivity here.
Okay, then I'll be looking forward to an nearly infinite number of partnerships with well aligned open projects.
Just last December, Sue & I allocated a substantial piece of our Wikiversity presentation time at Stanford to let Michael Dale talk about MetaVid; we're hosting it in our SVN repository, and I've also
My understanding is that Michael Dale was told that Wikimedia would be using Kaltura and that it might consider metavid some day 'in the future'. Perhaps I misunderstood, but this is also appears to be what was claimed in the presentation you gave to Sun Microsystems, and it was consistent with the press release that Kaltura was circulating when I heard this.
The SVN hosting (which started a few weeks ago) is, as I understand it, a direct results of Kaltura-related complaints that WMF is ignoring requests for help from open projects.
I'd ask Michael to respond directly, but I expect he is in Australia for FOMS (Foundations of Open Media Software, http://www.annodex.org/events/foms2008/pmwiki.php/Main/CFP).
Many months ago I asked if I could travel to Australia (on my own dime, none the less) to attend FOMS for Wikimedia. That, today, WMF has no one there speaks volumes to WMF's actual commitment to open media.
Talk is cheap.
[snip]
the project in other reasonable ways. It's not mature enough for real world deployment on WMF sites; nor is Kaltura.
Correct. Yet WMF is putting our press releases and calling for community help with one and not the other. And it's not just Metavid vs Kaltura, there are dozens of open media projects which we are not supporting but could and should be.
There are even quite a few open source flash video editors, if there was a reason to go the flash route, and we were approached years ago by the authors of a commercial Java video editor that wanted to work with us. Unlike Kaltura (and metavid), many of these other parties have mature technology.
[snip]
I'm not going to argue with you about the technical merits of either approach. There's no point in doing so: I am happy to let the open source ecosystem compete for the most viable solution.
At least you've given me the respect of letting me know that I should not expect an answer from you on those questions.
[snip]
We're quite transparent about what Kaltura is and what it isn't.
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. I suppose this is a disagreement which we are not going to be able to resolve.
The Wikimedia Foundation is not an isolationist organization. We don't want to be an island -- we want to be the ocean.
That sounds nice, but I'm not sure what it means. I can guess, I suppose.
Being all things to all people is worthless if you are nothing to yourself. The world does not need another ocean, but it does need a collection of uncompromisingly free knowledge. Not because compromises are evil, but because we already have a wealth of compromised options to choose from!
I think that most of the community would be sad to see Wikimedia abandoning the things that make it special and distinct from competing information sources.. Even though doing so might speed our growth and allow us to blanket the world, I think many would consider that a hollow victory.
The Foundation has a specific mission which can only be hurt by adopting proprietary formats. Apparently, you don't agree but you are unwilling to engage in discussion on this matter. While this continues a long standing pattern of failing to address these issues, there isn't much left for me to say in the absence of a counter argument.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org