[Foundation-l] Alternative approach for better video support

[Robert Horning]

GerardM wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have the idea that you are making projecting issues of the GPL on the
> GFDL. The GPL insists that you have to provide source code. As far as I can
> see, the GFDL does not. This is reasonable because a book can be published
> on paper under the GFDL. It is not necessary to provide a digital version as
> well.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>   

Re-read the GFDL again.  Yes, it does require that you provide the 
"source code" for whatever you are using.  The GFDL terms is "non-opaque 
format", which means you should have the ability to modify the text.  
PDF files are considered opaque, so you need to include at least an 
ASCII version of the text, or with some markup information if you are 
going that far.  MediaWiki software provides this on our wikis, so it 
isn't something that is necessarily something hard to achieve either.

The GFDL, unlike the GPL, does provide for using a common "network 
address" to link to this "source code" if you are printing something on 
physical paper.  It also requires that you maintain this link for at 
least one year after publication of the materials (aka you can't simply 
put the content up for a couple of days and then take it down again to 
meet this requirement).  If you do distribute on CD-ROM or other media 
that is a bit more expansive, having editable "source code" on the disc 
is also appropriate.... indeed preferred.

This ought to apply to all other kinds of media included with our 
content, including video, audio, and static images.  This has been a 
primary rationale for why certain multi-media formats have been accepted 
and others discouraged (aka MP3s and Quicktime movies or GIF images for 
a time).  This is a wise and prudent policy, and should not be ignored 
for the sake of establishing a partnership to help host content.