[Foundation-l] Why don't we re-encode proprietary formats as Ogg?

[Brian]

I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any
format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff and
the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say majority),
though.
It seems like a lot less work to solve the recoding
problem, and anyway, there is a lot of content that has yet to be
produced to worry about. Sticking to the ideals no matter what will
help more of that free content in free formats be produced in the
future when there are more people around to do the
creating.

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Tim Starling wrote:
> >
> > Some people in the community take the view that supporting proprietary
> > standards, as an option alongside free standards, weakens the ability
> > of the free standards to compete for mindshare and client support, and
> > thus that it shouldn't be done. We would have to have that discussion,
> > and possibly a vote on the issue, before deployment of any software
> > solution. But the software should come first, at the very least it
> > will be useful to support alternate free formats such as Dirac, Speex
> > and FLAC.
> >
> I don't know who "Some people in the community" are,
> but just in case they are anything like myself, who does
> hold a view not entirely distant from the one you describe...
>
> The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered
> material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was
> being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no
> matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered
> format version.
>
>
> Yours in deep amity;
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>