[Foundation-l] Alternative approach for better video support

[Anthony]

I'm glad I'm not the only one pointing out this fact about the GFDL.
However, going back to the actual issue at hand, it's not at all
necessary to use flv exclusively, and in fact that doesn't seem to be
something anyone has suggested.  Distributing free content in
proprietary formats *as an alternative* is perfectly acceptable under
the GFDL and any other free content license.

I don't know enough about the technology to have an opinion right now
on whether or not it's a good idea to offer flv as an alternative.
But as long as the primary editable version of the file is in a free
format I don't think it's a huge issue to also offer a version in flv
or some other proprietary format.

Daniel also makes an excellent point that the formats being considered
are lossy, and that therefore we should ensure that the proprietary
format version is the second generation and the free format is the
first generation.  In fact, I wonder the feasibility of having the
preferred version for editing being a lossless format.  But I don't
know a whole lot about the technology there, either.

On 7/23/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>