[Foundation-l] Alternative approach for better video support

Tue Jul 24 11:47:37 UTC 2007

On 7/24/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia at att.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
I think the term "machine-readable" loses all meaning if a printed
book qualifies.

> 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.
>
Well, the fact that it fails to meet the GFDL's *intended* definition
of "transparent" was the point I was making.  I'm sorry I had to
denigrate lawyers while doing so, but the fact that you're taking
issue with the fact that a printed book is not "machine readable"
actually proves that point.

> 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.
>
The printed word is wonderful for spreading free knowledge.  But it
isn't very easy to edit.  The GFDL recognizes this and allows mass
distribution of the printed word so long as one *also* provides as
little as a url to an appropriate digital copy.