Robin Schwab wrote:
On 16.09.2010 13:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 16 September 2010 11:19, Robin
Schwab<contact(a)robinschwab.ch> wrote:
Why being so dogmatic? I agree that free software
is a must for core
components of our project for strategic reasons. However for secondary
components such as an image viewer I see no such strategic reasons.
Because content that requires a proprietary viewer is considered
problematic. This is why Commons requires free formats.
I'm not talking about allowing content in a proprietary file format. All
those panoramics are jpg files. I only propose to put a proprietary
software on our servers giving the user an alternative way to see those
jpg files.
Whether it's the file format or the viewer, I don't see that much
difference and I think the question has pretty much been asked and
answered already. Part of the issue is that we're committed not just to
freedom of access, but also freedom of reproduction, so that mirrors or
downstream users should be able to freely recreate the experience if
they wish.
If the Wikimedia Foundation tried to absorb the costs of proprietary
software as suggested, there are a couple problems. The first problem is
that the foundation can only absorb some, not all, of the social impacts
of such a choice, no matter how much it tries to pick up the full
logistical and financial costs. The second problem is what else the
foundation would start to absorb, in the sense of cultural connections
and obligations, as a result of making such a choice.
For reasons such as this, content solutions on our side need to remain
free in the fullest sense of the word. People are welcome to try
whatever they like downstream or on the client side, and that's the
place to work on non-free "solutions" to such problems. After all,
there's no problem if someone wants to read Wikipedia using Internet
Explorer, either.
--Michael Snow