[Foundation-l] Alternative approach for better video support

[Michael Snow]

Anthony wrote:
> 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.
Leaving aside for a moment the current state of GFDL legalism vis-a-vis 
technology, I don't see any fundamental reason why a paper copy couldn't 
qualify as machine-readable. There are some pretty substantial endeavors 
focusing on just that sort of thing.

If you meant that it fails to meet the GFDL's definition of 
"transparent" you might have a stronger point. But that's a 
legalism-and-technology issue.

Despite the charges some pundits like to raise, there is no 
philosophical reason for us to be enemies of the printed word. Let's not 
allow our technological inadequacies to lead us into dismissing the 
medium that has, over the course of history, spread more free knowledge 
to more people than the Wikimedia Foundation has ever managed.

--Michael Snow