[Foundation-l] Two tests for the freeness of activities related to project content

[Gregory Maxwell]

I've come up with two tests which can be applied to issues like the
file format discussion in order to reach the determinations which I
believe to be most correct.


==Two Tests for the freeness of activities related to project content==

===Impoverished/principled reader test===

Imagine people who are sufficiently impoverished that they can only
afford zero cost software or who are sufficiently concerned about
their freedom that they only use legally licensed Free Software.  Does
taking the action discriminate against these people?  Does taking the
action give them a materially lesser experience?

===Impoverished/principled author test===

Imagine a collection of authors or publishers who are sufficiently
impoverished that they can only afford zero cost software or who are
sufficiently concerned about their freedom that they only use and
distribute legally licensed Free Software.  Would they be able to take
the same or materially equivalent action related to their own content?


=== Examples ===

====Using a free software flash module to support clients which can't
handle the HTML <canvas> tag====

This passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished reader can
be given the <canvas> tag which has equal or better functionality OR
the reader could legally use Gnash.

This passes the impoverished author test: The impoverished author
could legally perform the exact same action while paying no fees nor
using/distributing any software which was not freely licensed.

====Parallel distribution of Video in both Ogg/Theora and  Flash Video
because Flash video is more widely adopted====

I think this passes the impoverished reader test: The impoverished
reader can view the Ogg/Theora file, and the differences in
quality/bitrate are neither likely to be material nor were
contributing factors in the decision to offer Flash Video.

However, this clearly *fails* the impoverished author test:  The
impoverished author can not legally engage in parallel distribution
himself without paying codec licensing for encoders and fees for the
distribution of material in the licensed format.  The author could
distribute exclusively Ogg/Theora, but that wouldn't be equivalent
because it has significantly less adoption (and that was the reason to
consider parallel distribution in the first case).


====Parallel distribution of hypertext in an eBook format where only
*reading* tools were non-free, and some free ebook formats====

What if a format is totally free to authors/publishers but isn't
useful without a non-free reader?  I believe this has been for some
ebook formats, at some points in time. We'll presume that the free
format isn't materially worse than the non-free one.

This passes the impoverished reader test:  The impoverished reader can
use the free ebook format.

This passes the impoverished author test: He's free to turn out ebooks
in both formats just like we are.



It was re-reading some of Geni's posts that made me think of
describing this "impoverished author" test.  Much of Wikimedia's
mission isn't merely providing read-only content at no cost to the
public,  it's also a mission of enabling authorship by building a
collection of works that others can build upon.   It's isn't good
enough that our content be available to free software users, it also
must be free for authors to emulate, modify, and/or republish.  As
such, both tests are equally important.

I wouldn't presume to apply these tests to things unrelated to the
content (all that stuff our users are creating and posting in the
projects) such as Wikimedia office activities: Our mission is one of
enabling the world through freely licensed educational materials,  not
the creation/promotion of freely licensed office materials. (Although
there are practical and ethical reasons outside of the Wikimedia
mission why preferring freely licensed solutions is generally good...)

Thoughts? Holes? Better restatements?