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

[Brian]

How is that different from:
"[...] if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the encoding, we
should embrace [...]"

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Brian wrote:
> > Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
> > the wrong chord with you?
> >
> I think it is the " we should accept free content in any format."
> bit. ;-)
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
> cimonavaro at gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >> Brian wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I think this is the exact opposite of what I wished to convey.
> >>
> >> I do not hold we should accept non-free content. I don't hold
> >> that view. Period.
> >>
> >> But if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the
> >> encoding, we should embrace and liberate it from those
> >> bonds.
> >>
> >> That is all.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>