[Foundation-l] Why don't we re-encode proprietary formats as Ogg?

Tue Jun 9 06:26:10 UTC 2009

Brian wrote:
> Pretty sure we are saying the same thing - what part of my comment struck
> the wrong chord with you?
>   
I think it is the " we should accept free content in any format."
bit. ;-)
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
>   
>> wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>> Brian wrote:
>>     
>>> I hold the same sort of pragmatic view. In the absence of freely licensed
>>> content encoded in a free format we should accept free content in any
>>> format. I think it would take a revolution within the Foundation staff
>>>       
>> and
>>     
>>> the most vocal parts of the community (note that I did not say majority),
>>> though.
>>>
>>>       
>> I think this is the exact opposite of what I wished to convey.
>>
>> I do not hold we should accept non-free content. I don't hold
>> that view. Period.
>>
>> But if there is content that is *only* encumbered by the
>> encoding, we should embrace and liberate it from those
>> bonds.
>>
>> That is all.
>>
>>     
>>> It seems like a lot less work to solve the recoding
>>> problem, and anyway, there is a lot of content that has yet to be
>>> produced to worry about. Sticking to the ideals no matter what will
>>> help more of that free content in free formats be produced in the
>>> future when there are more people around to do the
>>> creating.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
>>>       
>> cimonavaro at gmail.com
>>     
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>>>> Tim Starling wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Some people in the community take the view that supporting proprietary
>>>>> standards, as an option alongside free standards, weakens the ability
>>>>> of the free standards to compete for mindshare and client support, and
>>>>> thus that it shouldn't be done. We would have to have that discussion,
>>>>> and possibly a vote on the issue, before deployment of any software
>>>>> solution. But the software should come first, at the very least it
>>>>> will be useful to support alternate free formats such as Dirac, Speex
>>>>> and FLAC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> I don't know who "Some people in the community" are,
>>>> but just in case they are anything like myself, who does
>>>> hold a view not entirely distant from the one you describe...
>>>>
>>>> The one thing I would say is that gettin unencumbered
>>>> material that was only encumbered by the encoding it was
>>>> being carried by to formats that are free, is a net plus, no
>>>> matter if it meant we were also carrying the encumbered
>>>> format version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yours in deep amity;
>>>>
>>>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>