[Foundation-l] Alternative approach for better video support

[Todd Allen]

GerardM 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 ?? 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.  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.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 7/23/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>   
>> On 7/23/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Hoi,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL#Transparent_formats for a summary of
>>>       
>> the
>>     
>>> problems with opaque as terminology used.
>>> Thanks,
>>>     GerardM
>>>
>>>       
>> There are differing interpretations of what a transparent format is
>> (most of which are pretty obviously incorrect), but distributing more
>> than 100 copies on paper without providing any digital copy at all
>> pretty clearly violates the requirement to have a machine readable
>> copy.
>>
>> It's also pretty clear that the license intends that copies encoded in
>> proprietary patented formats to be considered opaque copies, even if
>> some lawyer might be able to successfully argue otherwise.
>>
>>     
>>> On 7/23/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On 7/23/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> 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.
>>>>>           
>>>> The GFDL requires you to distribute transparent copies if you
>>>> distribute more than 100 copies.  "If you publish or distribute Opaque
>>>> copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either
>>>> include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque
>>>> copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a computer-network location
>>>> from which the general network-using public has access to download
>>>> using public-standard network protocols a complete Transparent copy of
>>>> the Document, free of added material."
>>>>
>>>> <blockquote>A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a
>>>> machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is
>>>> available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the
>>>> document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images
>>>> composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some
>>>> widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to
>>>> text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats
>>>> suitable for input to text formatters.</blockquote>
>>>>
>>>> Basically that is the document equivalent of "source code".
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>           
>>>> If you distribute more than 100 copies, it is.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>   
Well, remember, the copyright holder can break the license. If I write
GPL software, and distribute a binary copy without source code, that's
fine. On the other hand, -you- can't do that, you have to provide binary
and source, since you wouldn't be the copyright holder. Same type of
thing with the GFDL-as the copyright holder, you can grant anyone you
like an exception to your license, including yourself. (I also doubt
that you distributed over 100 copies.)

However, there is a clear intent in the GFDL that open specifications
must be used. If a format is locked and proprietary, it is not GFDL
compliant for widescale distribution, and it's not supposed to be. I
don't see that as any sort of onerous restriction, it's part of the
requirement that GFDL material be modifiable. I don't have Access. I
could borrow a Windows machine, I suppose, but even then I'd have to buy
it in order to do what the license says I'm supposed to be inherently
allowed to-modify that file. On the other hand, if it's in an open
format, I don't have to do that. I can use whatever software has been
developed for my OS, or can even look at the spec and develop my own.
Now, I have the -real- ability to modify and copy the file, as opposed
to the theoretical one. That's why closed == bad, and that's why both
GPL and GFDL take steps to prohibit its use on open content.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20070723/46942d0c/attachment-0001.pgp>