[00:00:17] Okay, so we're out of time for this week. I hope those of you who still have questions will be able to join next week. [00:00:22] Ziko: I don't give out long-term timelines to people because they're just lies, sorry. Development takes as long as it does. :-( [00:00:23] Some really great questions this time. :) [00:00:25] James_F: Also, are there any plans to revisit the way references are handled in WIkitext itself? For newer editors, it's a huge menace to understand and fix the traditional wikitext related to how references work. If anything can be done to ease the entire process, that will be perfect [00:00:32] tos, I'll write that down for next week. [00:00:40] tos: Promise I'll answer. [00:00:45] tos: But right now I have to run. [00:00:49] Sorry everyone, and thank you! [00:01:15] tos: i think "use templates" is and still will be the answer. [00:01:27] James_F and Maggie_Dennis: Next week can you have a longer time/make it more flexible to extend time in the later half, please? 60 minutes is short considering how much time it initially takes to start :) [00:01:28] tos, is this question still pending? "James_F: Are there any functionalities from the original editor that "will not" be introduced in VE, atleast in the short to mid-term basis?" [00:01:38] thanks everybody for attending, and see you soon! [00:01:51] Well, they're usually set for an hour. Sometimes it's hard to fill that hour. :) But we can try to ramp up more quickly. [00:01:56] It helps when we have questions already! [00:02:02] Maggie_Dennis: No. That particular one is answered. Also thanks for noting the other question down [00:02:13] Thanks, tos. I want to be sure that we cover everything. [00:02:24] If James doesn't have anything going on after the meeting, we can try. [00:02:37] good night folks [00:02:41] TMg_: Was that as an answer to the references question? [00:02:46] yes. [00:03:54] Ah. I disagree. It's a terrible pain to make the newcomers understand to use the tags, and then add the {{Reflist}} at the end, and not to copy over the entire list of refs at the references section. Something to streamline this entire process is much needed [00:04:07] Maggie_Dennis: Thanks :) [00:04:30] TMg_: ^^ [00:04:32] Okay, I'm going to go post this log. :) Thank you for attending and prompting some great conversation. :) [00:05:24] tos: isn't that what james was talking about? being able to add {{cite web | ...}} with a single click in VE? [00:07:57] TMg_: Not really. As far as I understand, the wikitext still remains the same. That is, anyone using the traditional editor will have to go through the hassles I mentioned above. Workflow wise, it's easier to stick to what we have, but it might be sensible to have something simpler made to handle this. [00:08:29] TMg_: Also, I have no idea if reflist is present by default when you create an article using VE, so I am not sure if the issue arises there too [00:08:40] so replace our extension with something else? what would that be? more or less works. we can do everything with it. [00:12:23] Hmm, yes. does fix all we want for now. A simpler solution is to simply make a beginner's guide to easy referencing, but I'd still want something that is intuitive rather than require to be learnt by the editors [00:14:08] Maggie_Dennis: Btw I still await an approximate timeline by which we can expect citation functionality and speed improvement. (For my own internet connection, I see nothing less than half the current loading time being effective, so I [00:14:28] but referencing isn't easy. ;) maybe split the workflow. create the references first, put them in a library and then use them in the articles. but i think this is out of the VE scope. [00:14:33] I'd say to the point where our loading time is say 70% of what's now) [00:16:01] Added to my list, tos. :) [00:17:26] TMg_: Indeed it's out of VE scope but still an important discussion topic. What if the reflist was made automatic for any articles that have tags but no section. One issue could be solved that way. [00:17:37] All right. I'm off to feed my dog. :) He looks quite disappointed in me right now. Good night or whatever time of day it is for you, everyone! [00:18:02] bye Maggie_Dennis [00:18:13] Bye! [00:18:23] https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6507 [00:21:15] TMg_: That bug ends up as a double duplicate of https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5984 [00:21:29] i know. reopen it. ;) [00:22:14] TMg_, I was wondering about that too [00:22:23] i would, if I knew what needs to be written there to reopen [00:23:12] we were considering this for the Parsoid cite implementation [00:25:41] tos: one click switching should be possible with some javascript, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/switch_editor [00:26:12] some users have said they like the switch being placed on the Vector 'Edit source' button [00:27:27] jayaway: Thnks. I suggested it mostly because I thought it should be a default feature though, than just be 'possible' [00:29:30] I'd say that is counter intuitive though. [00:29:58] (placing switch on edit source button) [17:34:08] Good Morning! is Akshata around? [17:36:25] C64: I don't think she's usually on IRC sadly. [17:36:30] Did you need something urgently? [17:36:32] :-( [17:38:45] No, thank you! [17:38:45] have a great day! [17:38:51] Oh, 'kay [18:40:35] Ohai! [18:43:14] Hey hey kim_bruning! [18:43:47] hey kim_bruning :) [18:44:03] Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain! [18:44:07] Ohai guys :-) [18:44:26] so this is about more than just the mp4 thing? [18:44:48] "yes" [18:44:52] kim_bruning: unclear [18:44:54] It's been billed differently in different places [18:44:57] but I, at least, intend for it to be about MP4 ;p [18:45:03] (here in my personal capacity, mind) [18:45:06] marktraceur, I can see you making airquotes there ;) [18:45:08] And Ironholds usually gets what he wantss [18:45:13] kim_bruning, "sure you can" [18:45:30] "what" are these air "quotes" of which "you" speak? [18:45:45] I wonder if any of you have been recruited for team codex in the MIT mystery hunt? ;-) [18:46:01] Hah [18:46:29] kim_bruning: I'm maybe running with Metaphysical Plant this year, due to friends :P [18:47:15] marktraceur, Hsssssssssssssssss! .... O:-) [18:47:20] Heh [18:48:08] * kim_bruning is torn on mp4 :-/ [18:48:16] * kim_bruning figures the MPEG LA has way too much power [18:48:19] I can see that, given your three votes on the page [18:48:29] marktraceur, it's not a vote. ;-) [18:48:39] Well. Three opinions. [18:48:50] marktraceur, right. first, second, and third choice ;-) [18:48:57] Runoff opinions [18:49:51] The numbered lists are so tempting to misinterpret... [18:50:05] here's a question; who actually /closes/ the RfC? [18:50:27] marktraceur, if your discussion risks vote-split, refactor to a less-splitting method :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting [18:51:05] Ironholds: good question, please ask in 9 minutes [18:51:35] Ironholds, I found the answer to that in a fantasy novel ;-) [18:51:37] kim_bruning: I think given the other folks active right now we should avoid getting sucked into a voting-method discussion... [18:51:45] We don't want to hog the channel [18:51:50] Ironholds, the answer, byt the power invested in me, is: You are ;-) [18:52:07] * Ironholds crosses self [18:52:20] wait, we didn't invest any power in you. SAVED! [18:52:52] marktraceur, I wasn't starting, was I? ;-) [18:52:58] No of course not [18:54:06] Ironholds, Or Did We? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Y73sPHKxw [18:54:16] duh duh duuuuuuh [18:56:57] yay, bawolff_halfhere :) [18:57:09] Office hours like whoah [18:57:40] Keegan: such engagement, much discourse, wow [18:58:11] Many, many kilobytes to go [18:58:30] Greg-g: im semi here from a cell phone, and have to also pay attention to something in real life :) [18:58:41] bawolff_halfhere, lies. The internet is all that matters. [18:58:55] what Ironholds said [18:59:02] true... [19:00:30] Hello everyone, thanks for joining us for this office hours chat to discuss our plans for the Multimedia team! [19:00:36] Hi fabriceflorin :) [19:00:50] Hi [19:00:53] Who is here to discuss our multimedia plans? [19:01:13] I would like to introduce a few members of our team, who will be joining this discussion: [19:01:41] * Ironholds raises a hand [19:01:43] I'm here ;p [19:01:49] so you are [19:02:05] marktraceur is software developer on our multimedia team, Keegan is community liaison ... [19:02:06] NotASpy, my client has you joining after I said that; I don't trust your username any more ;p [19:02:26] robla is our director of engineering for platform, and guides our multimedia efforts [19:02:56] Philippe Beaudette is here to provide a community advocacy perspective ... [19:03:11] Ironholds, correct order here :-P [19:03:16] any legal people around, fabriceflorin ? [19:03:22] and I am Fabrice Florin, multimedia product manager and your host for this discussion. Welcome all! [19:03:25] Luis intends to join, I believe, NotASpy [19:03:28] * greg-g won't point fingers at the legal people [19:03:33] great [19:03:34] lvillaWMF is already here! [19:03:38] * lvillaWMF waves [19:03:42] Obvs, I ignored him :P [19:03:45] greg-g: great; pointing fingers is rude [19:03:47] ohai lvillaWMF [19:03:56] * kim_bruning points thumbs at the legal person [19:04:05] The main topic of today's discussion is going to be a MP4 Video RfC we posted yesterday. [19:04:52] Before we start this discussion, I would like to invite folks to check out a proposed Multimedia Vision for 2016, and comment on its discussion page, on your own time: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Multimedia_Features/Vision_2016 [19:04:59] fabriceflorin, couldn't you have just announced a microsoft takeover? That'd be less contentious ;-) [19:05:02] I have a question regarding the timing of this. Was this a "we had a office hours planned but the RFC is kinda trumping the topic, naturally." or "We really only announced the IRC office hour 1.5 hours before it started"? [19:05:08] kim_bruning: lol [19:05:33] Now on to today's main topic: our multimedia team seeks your guidance on whether or not to support the MP4 video format. [19:05:43] greg-g: rather the first, I believe [19:05:51] I have a whole mess of questions on that topic ;p [19:05:58] Here is the RfC we opened today to discuss this together, as a movement: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video [19:06:07] Ironholds: You? Really? [19:06:17] Philippe: hope so :) [19:06:36] As you know, the MP4 digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC. [19:06:39] looks like we have a few more people coming in now [19:06:42] fabriceflorin, you guys intend to use open formats, but store mp4 alongside, right? [19:07:14] fabriceflorin, as long as one doesn't store exclusively the closed format, at least total disaster is averted ;-) [19:07:19] kim_bruning: The proposal would be to feature dual formats for all video files on our server: MP4 and open formats. [19:07:22] I love the .avi format [19:07:25] * kim_bruning wants to point that out before folks go "zomg sellout" [19:07:41] We believe that supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora). [19:07:47] kim_bruning, they're going to do that anyway ;) [19:07:51] Josve05a: thats actually multiple (like tiff) [19:07:52] fabriceflorin, I still don't like it, but there won't be any snipers in your future. (at least not hired by me ;-) [19:07:53] However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required. [19:08:12] Josve05a: It's also only a container - the determination of codec is still important [19:08:31] marktraceur: there's a bit of confusion along those lines, indeed. [19:08:38] fabriceflorin, define acceptable legal terms for us? (and can we get legal comment on that?) [19:08:38] marktraceur: has that determination been made? [19:08:44] We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not we should support MP4 on our sites. I propose we begin by asking for views in favor of MP4 support for a few minutes, then focus on views against it. [19:08:52] Philippe: Well, that's what the RFC is about! :) [19:09:00] fabriceflorin, what about balanced views? [19:09:04] fabriceflorin, that doesn't seem massively useful [19:09:06] Are there views in favor of MP4 support? [19:09:08] we have an RfC for people giving views [19:09:09] marktraceur I know. I just wanted to point out that I like videos with it, since they run smoothely-er on my PC. [19:09:11] Really, cuz I didn't see the codec choice delineatd there? [19:09:12] marktraceur: by "MP4 format" we generally refer to "MP4 container with AVC or H.264 video and/or AAC audio", roughly [19:09:15] I understood that this would be an /office hours/ session [19:09:24] Yes [19:09:26] in other words, a venue for people in support and opposition to ask questions [19:09:32] there should be a little faq page on the rfc to that effect :) [19:09:33] I second Ironholds [19:09:34] and people who haven't made their minds up,, too [19:09:38] Ironholds++ [19:09:40] Ironholds yes it is. It gives me targets [19:09:50] its unclear to me if we will transcode original resolution of mp4 uploads, or just specific resolutions like current transcodes [19:09:51] not an additional vector for !votes - particularly one that is so obfuscated from a lot of the community [19:09:56] to add to what fabriceflorin is saying, we'd like to make sure that if we support MP4 now, and decide later that it was a mistake, we can back out without losing content [19:10:07] Support of MP4 could serve to support the format, not supporting it could support truly open codecs and promote the demise of a patent encumbered format. [19:10:18] Also, are there specific questions we should make sure to cover in this discussion? [19:10:40] does anyone have a copy of the Epic M Red Dragon manual? [19:10:51] sorry, I got here late, can soemone give me a quick summary ? [19:10:52] bawolff_halfhere, I would assume transcode at original resolution, to ensure minimal data loss. [19:10:53] fabriceflorin, the easiest way to resolve that seems to be for people to just ask those questions ;p [19:10:53] Josve05a: I think a lot of the issues we have with MP4 we would potentially have with AVI, but without a lot of the benefits - I don't see AVI being better supported on mobile or browsers than MP4. [19:11:00] Dragonfly6-7, nothing of substance has been discussed so far. [19:11:03] Dragonfly6-7, we're deciding what we're discussing ;-) [19:11:12] Dragonfly6-7 arguing about the agenda [19:11:20] welcome Fuzheado ! We're asking for views in favor of MP4 support: would you like to present your perspective now? [19:11:26] Soon we'll start using leaves as currency :) [19:11:30] is there, without jailbreaking, a way for users to view WebM / Ogg Theora videos on iOS devices? [19:11:32] Do I want to moderate thee channel somehow? ;-) [19:11:47] so, no official comment on 'this is office hours, not an RfC'? Alrighty [19:11:55] Keegan ++ [19:11:59] wctaiwan: not really [19:12:13] hi fabriceflorin, all [19:12:21] I once again second the gentleman who holds the iron ;-) [19:12:30] SO MUCH TEXT! slow down. I want to read it all! [19:12:34] would also prefer q&a format [19:12:40] Agreed. [19:12:43] (+1) [19:12:43] do we have a third? [19:12:45] Is there anyone in this room that is unsure about whether or not to support MP4? If so, are there specific questions we could answer to help you reach an informed decision? [19:12:47] Josve05a: We'll also push logs out afterwards, don't worry [19:12:54] Is there a reason why the license agreement has to be private? [19:12:54] that's 4 [19:13:00] The very practical case for MP4 is that it will be a while before anything free or non-free will be as popular. H.264 is burned into lots of hardware [19:13:01] fabriceflorin, :-) [19:13:02] fabriceflorin: people are asking for that to be the topic, yes. [19:13:11] * Aranda56 isn't sure what MP4 does so maybe I could learn from this discussion [19:13:14] +1 to legoktm [19:13:25] (+1) for MP4 [19:13:29] oh, there's a private license agreement? [19:13:31] I know some of the situation, but not enough to be truly informed. [19:13:31] so... mp4 is the successor to mp3, and the debate is whether mediawiki should support it? [19:13:32] Welcome geeni, glad you could join us! [19:13:33] Aranda56, MP4 is a container format for video. In short, video files :-) [19:13:51] dragon: not quite [19:13:56] kim_bruning so the MP3 of videos? [19:14:01] Ok, 2nd point of order, who is answering questions [19:14:13] Aranda56, An mp3 of videos. And not the most popular one around these parts. ;-) [19:14:16] Aranda56: best you do some background reading outside of irc... [19:14:17] OK, I've seen a couple of questions out there.... [19:14:17] mp3 was the audio part of a previous mpeg video standard [19:14:27] i think that's too elementary for our convo here [19:14:28] Aranda56 no. MP3 patent situation is accidentally messy. MP4 is more deliberate [19:14:42] * Josve05a is woundering if he is allowed to be in this chat, and vote, since he is not an admin/work for the foundation... [19:14:43] ONe is "Is there a reason why the license agreement has to be private?" Another was [19:14:51] Is there a reason we want to accept a patent-encumbered format/codec to support a closed operating system? [19:14:53] Aranda56, but the proposal is to support mp4 anyway, because there's zillions of people who can only view video in mp4 format. [19:14:54] Aranda56 for example there is some pointless stuff in MP4 so that apple would have something to put into the patent pool [19:15:01] Yes, is this RFC backed supported by some statistics? No. of users accessing commons from mobile platforms? No. of users who prefer to use mp4 over open formats? [19:15:08] Josve05a: You are certainly welcome here [19:15:12] If iOS doesn't support Ogv/WebM, that's their loss. [19:15:28] twkozlowski, sort of, if we support mp4 we reach so many more people with it [19:15:44] twkozlowski: because people are human beings, not their devices [19:15:52] we've featured videos on en's main page. I don't recall complaints [19:15:55] and people should have access to free information regardless of the flavor of their devices [19:16:05] brion, it does take away som e incentive to vote with one's wallet though ;-) [19:16:08] Hi, legoktm, the proposed MP4 license agreement would be private, at the request of the licensor, MPEG-LA. Read more here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video/Background#What_would_an_MP4_license_include.3F [19:16:12] The Apple issue with mp4 format is a pain... a real pain... but we should not throw away our values and principals for exposure. [19:16:14] People make informed decision to use non-free software [19:16:42] fabriceflorin: that should be linked on the main RfC page. [19:16:42] legoktm: regarding private license policy, that's more a question for MPEG-LA (the folks responsible for the license). we're merely respecting their request [19:16:49] fabriceflorin: are there other examples where we enter into private agreements with software licensors to run Wikipedia et al? cc lvillaWMF [19:17:02] greg-g: not sure what you mean by "run Wikipedia" [19:17:03] If they want to use a device that doesn't support free video formats, are we to intervene in that? [19:17:03] legoktm: This is not unique to us, MPEG-LA does not make its standard agreement public, though they provide this overview: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf [19:17:07] I don't think it will be a big deal for us to use non-free software if the most important part is improving the Wikipedia for the long term [19:17:12] robla have you asked them how good their physical security is? [19:17:14] Okay so the first question here and a prominent one on the RfC is "Why is there/what is in the private licensing agreement?" [19:17:21] Aranda56: we'll be using free software to do the conversion. [19:17:25] lvillaWMF: there is a set of software needed to "run" wp, are we also already agreeing to private agreements there? [19:17:36] lvillaWMF: eg, maybe Maxmind? [19:17:47] Well, an "only-for-Wikimedia" agreement that's private is so not connected to our values. [19:17:49] What is maxmind? [19:17:50] greg-g: we use Maxmind's free database last time I checked [19:17:50] brion oh ok [19:17:59] we use their free one? their free one sucks [19:18:00] bawolff_halfhere: ip geolocation [19:18:05] however using free software to do things that are encumbered by patents requires a patent license, separate from the copyright license to use or redistribute the software [19:18:05] Aranda56: it absolutely is a deal. [19:18:06] legoktm: don't think so [19:18:10] ok [19:18:32] Aranda56, so, my biggest issue, at least, is not the non-free element. Don't get me wrong, that's still a complaint I have ;p. [19:18:33] We have the choice of going our way and reaching our goals of creating a free encyclopaedia/media repository slowly but steadily [19:18:42] I'm just slightly confused as to how we can even have a discussion about this. [19:18:44] greg-g: as brion is pointing out, there is no software being licensed here. [19:18:44] I mean, greg-g.... we don't publish every contract that we enter into.... so it depends on how you define a "secret agreement"? [19:18:51] or accepting that we have to compromise to reach this goal faster [19:18:52] lvillaWMF: s/software/patent/ [19:19:02] That is, "we'd like you to agree to something. We can't tell you the conditions of what you're agreeing to". [19:19:10] brion: I don't think we can say for sure we'll be using free software for this. [19:19:13] even if people agree, it isn't an informed agreement. [19:19:24] Philippe: see above, agreements that are needed to run the software. Not personal contracts for instance. [19:19:28] fwiw, the FSF published some info about the private agreement in 2010 at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/h264-patent-license [19:19:32] robla: we locked that in months ago didn't we? is there some news here i don't know about? [19:19:32] A question from asaifm: Yes, is this RFC backed supported by some statistics? No. of users accessing commons from mobile platforms? No. of users who prefer to use mp4 over open formats? [19:19:35] thanks much johnsu01 [19:19:42] The community should absolutely have the ability to read the agreement. [19:19:45] Are there other important questions about this RfC which we should address here? [19:19:54] fabriceflorin: we're still discussing some [19:19:58] If not, the whole issue sould be off the table. [19:20:05] There was the estimate of 150 million of our visitors that can't view video [19:20:05] So if we're offering dual hosting of MP4 and Ogv/WebM, most of this is the issue of principles, yes? [19:20:18] my biggest question would be how it's possible to have it as an RfC. Again, RfCs imply informed consent; the private license means that it is not really possible to do that. [19:20:18] * NotASpy nods [19:20:19] twkozlowski, that's a position to write on the RFC. [19:20:36] twkozlowski, right now I think we want to ask questions :-) [19:20:38] robla: is that on the RFC (possibility of non-Free Software)? [19:20:39] Geniice's comment is very concerning. I would love for legal to comment on it [19:20:46] Transparency is built into the system, but if editors are going into something blind, how is it really a fair and informed decision possible? [19:20:49] (this is not to say I want us to just announce we're supporting MP4 now and not discuss it, but I think the structure of the discussion as it currently stands is detached from the /equitable/ structure) [19:20:52] * greg-g hasn't read the whole thing, had a sick toddler last night [19:20:57] greg-g, well, defer to fabriceflorin a little, else we're going off track way fast :-) [19:21:00] huh, interesting [19:21:02] johnsu01: Have you linked to that on the RFC? It might be relevant information in the oppose section. [19:21:05] bawolff_halfhere: lvillaWMF should be able to address that [19:21:22] lvillaWMF, what's interesting to you? [19:21:30] kim_bruning: that FSF published a copy of the agreement [19:21:30] Secret agreements are totally opposed to what we stand for. [19:21:40] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video [19:21:41] (Geni's comment is that MP4 videos wouldn't be compatible with CC- BY-SA) [19:21:42] kim_bruning: I had googled before we launched this to see if there was a public copy [19:21:48] lvillaWMF, Awesome. do you have a link? :-) [19:21:54] kim_bruning: scrolls up :) [19:21:57] and we should totally put that on the RFC too :-) [19:22:00] * kim_bruning scrolls [19:22:05] brion: I don't remember making that an absolute requirement, and anyway, we had many of the conversations about this before the Cisco announcement (which is only free as in beer) [19:22:08] kim_bruning: appears that doesn't come up in Google because it is scanned, so not searchable [19:22:27] * kim_bruning just tried to locate the buttons for retweet and favorite on irc. [19:22:29] robla: cisco's stuff is useless for us (no audio) [19:22:33] lvillaWMF: can you e-mail this to me? I'll run it through OCR for you no problem [19:22:36] bawolff_halfhere: geniice : so, the answer to that is waaaay more than IRC-length [19:22:39] or link, whatever. [19:22:51] marktraceur: haven't yet, can do when I post my other comment, but maybe someone else will beat me to it [19:22:56] 'kay! Thanks :) [19:23:02] asaifm: mobile use of Wikimedia sites is already large (33% of total pageviews last month) and growing rapidly. Here are stats that may help answer your question: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm [19:23:06] robla: as far as I'm concerned, using FOSS to do the conversion is a pretty strong requirement [19:23:11] twkozlowski: The link to the FSF scan? I can email you [19:23:22] fabriceflorin, yes, but that's distinct from "how much are they using multimedia" [19:23:31] couldn't we just try and get WebM support into Magic Lantern? [19:23:33] bawolff_halfhere: geniice : the short answer is that it isn't a conflict with CC BY-SA; CC is agnostic to the underlying technology and failings/restrictions/etc. it has (except for deliberate DRM) [19:23:38] the squid logs tell us what proportion of users to all sites, including things like the blog, are from phones. [19:24:09] Keegan: yes please [19:24:11] lvillaWMF: it would be great if the long answer could be included on rfc [19:24:13] lvillaWMF I'm aware of the strict legalities I was referring to the spirit of the license. [19:24:15] lvillaWMF, fabriceflorin: then I'm confused. In the RfC Fabrice said "Redistribution of videos encoded in the MP4 format on our sites would be subject to the license terms specified by their authors/uploaders (typically CC-BY-SA-3.0), which would make commercial usage unlikely in most case" [19:24:26] This thing contains royalities and such... This goes right against the core tenets... [19:24:27] ..which seems odd. The last bit, at least. I'm assuming it was a typo ;p [19:24:51] that quote is troublesome to me [19:24:53] On a basic it level it looks like adaptating MP4 would compromise our CC by SA. [19:25:03] geniice: the spirit of the license has always been technology-agnostic. If you publish a book under CC, you don't have to buy everyone a photocopier. If you put a statue under CC, you don't have to invent a statue-copying machine. etc. :) [19:25:09] bawolff_halfhere: yes, I plan to do that [19:25:23] thanks [19:25:34] lvillaWMF: but, are others able to make and distribute a derivative without paying the mpeg-la? [19:25:47] indeed, that's the thing [19:25:50] lvillaWMF no but I'm not meant to demand that they use my photocopier and charge for that [19:26:02] Ironholds: I am planning to elaborate on my previous statement to clarify that after closer legal review, use of MP4 video is NOT incompatible with CC-BY-SA. [19:26:09] greg-g: you mean, other than by using the WebM version? (i.e., by the fact that we'll go above/beyond what the license actually requires?) [19:26:10] fabriceflorin, okay, cool :) [19:26:27] Keegan: any ideas where I could publish the text of that secret agreement? [19:26:32] lvillaWMF: assume no parallel distribution for a second [19:26:35] the internet [19:26:39] fabriceflorin: brilliant, that's may biggest concern. [19:26:43] assume the file is only on commons in h264 [19:27:02] I'm not eager to assume facts that will not be true. [19:27:03] lvillaWMF: last I heard, parallel distribution wasn't explicitly a part of CC licenses :) [19:27:07] fabriceflorin, of course it's not incompatible :-) [19:27:10] NotASpy not that statement while true is deeply missleading [19:27:27] * Josve05a gets glasses, a bigger screen, starts to scroll to the top, the scroll bar goes down to the bottom automaticly. Josve05a screems! [19:27:30] but, the point is, I may get a copy of the h264 from somewhere other than Commons. [19:27:33] but if you insist, then you get the long answer, which as I said, isn't really IRC-able [19:27:36] twkozlowski: Probably any place you want off-wiki. I'm not certain of the legality of publishing it so... [19:27:42] NotASpy, You do still officially need a licensed decoder. (or an eyepatch and a parrot ;-) [19:27:43] lvillaWMF: is it on wiki? [19:27:43] NotASpy: Thanks, and my apologies for any confusion. This is a complex matter, and lvillaWMF is more knowledgeable on this point than I am, as our legal counsel. [19:27:50] greg-g: it's not, yet [19:27:52] k :) [19:28:00] fabriceflorin: but of course there is a difference between whether it contradicts the license, and whether it contradicts the reasons Wikimedia chooses that license in the first place. If there are cases when Wikimedia is okay with works being distributed without permission to make derivatives, or commercial derivatives, then why is CC-BY-SA the license to start with [19:28:06] lvillaWMF I know the long answer. this isn't the first time the issue has come up [19:28:22] NotASpy, OTOH this is somewhat offset by the fact that the proposal would have MP4 alongside open formats [19:28:30] Question: What would this mean for wikis who use InstantCommons? Do they need to get license agreements too? [19:28:50] good question legoktm [19:28:55] On a related topic, here is a background note that may be relevant: Do users of Wikimedia need an MP4 license? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video/Background#Do_users_of_Wikimedia_need_an_MP4_license.3F [19:29:00] Keegan: I'll publish it tonight and link the text on the RFC page [19:29:01] we seem to maybe be breaking some promises there [19:29:12] geniice: assume what you want :) [19:29:18] Our findings are that users of Wikimedia do not need to buy or agree to patent licenses in order to play, edit, distribute, or upload videos from Wikimedia. [19:29:19] legoktm: I would think not. [19:29:30] it would be essentially embed streamed from wmf [19:29:34] legoktm: fabriceflorin's link seems to hold the answer "Merely distributing MP4 files never requires a patent license." [19:29:39] fabriceflorin: how about using the videos for commercial purposes? [19:29:44] what about derivatives, marktraceur ? [19:29:45] + that [19:30:00] upload videos to wikipedia, or download from? [19:30:02] fabriceflorin, yeah, I've read that. As a firefox user who can't use ogg vorbis I'm totally down with improving video format options [19:30:25] Ironholds: why can't you use ogg vorbis with Firefox? [19:30:29] but the argument doesn't support "we need MP4", it supports "we need a video format that works in a variety of browsers" [19:30:31] doesn't instantcommons store thumbnails locally? /me investiages [19:30:35] lvillaWMF: that section fab linked to might be a good place for that answer, btw :) [19:30:39] I think WebM would be more conformed to our values than MP4. [19:30:47] what guarantees do we have that the MPEG LA will tighten their fist. (ignoring the rebels slipping through their fingers for a moment) [19:30:48] AVRS, absolutely no idea; it's just never worked for me properly :) [19:31:02] that they won't tighten their fist, rather? [19:31:05] kim_bruning: I think we can always "turn it off" [19:31:08] Ironholds: we already support WebM, fwiw. [19:31:18] Legoktm: store not create [19:31:18] we will continue full support for webm [19:31:20] lvillaWMF: specifically if adding in "distributing a derivative, commercially" ;) [19:31:30] mdale, in the current configuration, it seems like that should be possible. As long as patent licenses prohibit retroactive terms. [19:31:31] * greg-g is done giving notes to lvillaWMF [19:31:32] twkozlowski: After discussing this with lvillaWMF, it is now my understanding that commercial use of MP4 files is authorized under the terms of CC-BY-SA. [19:31:45] mdale: Precisely. If turned off, there will still be copies in the free-format forms [19:31:47] YuviPanda, ah. Then..what? [19:31:54] bawolff_halfhere: right. thanks :) [19:32:03] if only our friends at Apple and Google would share information about the number of complaints they receive from Wikipedia users unable to access video on those platforms, then we would have some data about the possible effectiveness of Wikipedia etc as a driving force for positive change in this area [19:32:11] if we already have WebM support.. [19:32:16] fabriceflorin, That's not the main problem though, right? Someone still needs to make a distribute MP4 players to make it all work. [19:32:20] Google supports webm [19:32:32] johnsu01, would you be willing to ask them? [19:32:32] chrome has WebM, Firefox has WebM, Opera has WebM, and IE and Safari are getting plugins [19:32:34] Its only iphones that are a problem [19:32:40] bawolff_halfhere: poorly, on mobile devices [19:32:47] and it's FSF supported [19:32:47] bawolff_halfhere, oh, that's interesting [19:32:58] works on my phone :p [19:33:00] Keegan: sure, but you could turn off "encoding" if that were to incur costs .. and we could write a rule that only distributed the webm versions. [19:33:03] fabriceflorin: twkozlowski: I think that's… not quite right, but explaining the nuance is not going to work here. I would say more precisely that CC's rights/permissions are different from, and don't interact with, the patent rights/permissions [19:33:05] iOS, windows phone, other non-android minority platforms <- no WebM [19:33:11] Howdy paroneayea! [19:33:15] windows & mac with stock browsers and no plugins <- no WebM [19:33:16]