[Foundation-l] Alternative approach for better video support

[Anthony]

On 7/23/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is not that obvious at all. When software needed to make use of data is
> available without any kind of discrimination, it should suffice. At some
> stage I created an 80 Mb database in Microsoft Access. Would you deny that I
> could make this data available under the GFDL ??

Well, you can make any data you want available under the GFDL, as you
own the copyright on it (if it's copyrightable data, anyway).  But the
intention of the GFDL is that proprietary formats are opaque.  I'd say
this is obvious, as the GFDL specifically says that "Opaque formats
include proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by
proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or
processing tools are not generally available, and the
machine-generated HTML, PostScript or PDF produced by some word
processors for output purposes only."  Now some lawyer-minded folk
might jump on the "proprietary word processors" part and note that
they didn't say anything about "proprietary video editing software".
But this sentence alone makes it crystal clear that the *intent* of
the GFDL is that proprietary patented formats are not opaque formats.

> I gave it to people, who
> also had Access, and they were happy to have it. Now when you can convince
> me that I did not have the right to make it available to them under the
> GFDL, I will inform them about this and you can explain to them why they are
> not entitled to use my data and/or you can explain to me why they can do
> whatever they like with my data because they are not validly restricted by a
> license.
>
> My intention in this was clear, I wanted these people to have it and I
> wanted to make sure that it stayed available under the conditions as I
> understood them. This meant do what you like, but you cannot sell it to
> someone else.

I think your intention goes a long way in this situation.  The fact
that the original copy is itself not in a transparent format probably
goes a long way too.  To make things perfectly clear, you could always
formally waive section 3 of the GFDL, dealing with transparent
formats.  Otherwise, if the people who received your data distribute
more than 100 copies of it, they'd be in a legal grey-area.

> If GFDL data can only be used with Free Software, if it is
> not permitted to change the format of the data and extend it when this makes
> sense for a particular application, it would mean to me that the argument
> that the Wikimedia Foundation happened at the wrong time because a liberal
> license was not available has gained weight.
>
The GFDL isn't a good choice for videos anyway.

Anthony