Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion is now closed and archived. Please do not modify it.

Closing with consensus prefer no MP4 support. Although this was a complicated RFC, with multiple options for !voting and discussion, the closure itself does not need deep analysis, and can be done very simply without getting into complicated discussions about how to weight the !votes, which !votes ought be set aside as based on a misunderstanding, and so on. For information only, the raw, unadjusted, uncorrected figures were:

  • Prefer full MP4 support: 145
  • Prefer partial MP4 support - viewing only: 4
  • Prefer partial MP4 support - contributions only: 56
  • Neutral: 7
  • Prefer no MP4 support: 309
  • (various other community solutions were also proposed)

It would be possible to subject these raw figures to a close analysis and come up with a more 'accurate' count, but I doubt that that is worth doing as the resultant consensus is unlikely to change.

Now, although the consensus of prefer no MP4 support has to be respected, there is a considerable amount of detailed information here which clearly deserves close study. I have created a new sub-page Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video/Analysis of responses to allow editors to work collaboratively on understanding the nuances of what the community has said, and learning for the future. Everybody should be free to help out with that analysis, including editors who have who have expressed strong opinions in the discussion. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]



The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team seeks community guidance on whether or not to support the MP4 video file format on Wikimedia projects. This request for comments (RfC) will start on January 15, 2014 and will remain open until February 14, 2014. RfC results will be used to determine whether or not to enable MP4 on our sites -- and how widely.

All users are welcome to participate in this RfC, whether you are a reader, contributor or editor to Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, or any other site that uses content from our free media repository. Even if you do not speak English, you are welcome to participate here. If this page has already been translated into your language, click in the translation bar above to read it. If not, we invite you to translate it yourself.

One of the 'crats will close this RFC during the day of 14th February (UTC).


Introduction

Video is used widely for educational purposes on the Internet. Online videos can be an effective learning tool, particularly for people who cannot read well. However, video is not widely used on Wikimedia projects. To date, only 40,500 video files have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons -- about 0.2% of the 19.9 million other media files in our repository (by contrast, YouTube now hosts over 6.5 million educational videos).

At this time, we only support two open video formats on our sites: Ogg Theora and WebM. Some people think that wide adoption of these open formats has been hampered by three main problems:

  1. Creating videos in open formats is difficult. No widely-available video cameras will record video in these formats. This includes modern mobile phones, the biggest source of new videos globally. Once video is recorded in other formats, special tools like Firefogg are required to re-encode them in open formats, special plugins are required to edit them, and these tools and plugins are not widely used in the video creation and editing community (transcoding can happen server-side, but requires a license.)
  2. Once created, these files cannot be viewed on many mobile devices without extra software -- and most videos recorded on mobile devices cannot be directly uploaded to our sites. This is particularly concerning because mobile use of Wikimedia sites is already large (33% of total pageviews last month) and growing rapidly.
  3. While the Chrome and Firefox browsers used by a majority of our visitors support WebM by default, a large number of users (several hundred million) visit our site every month in browsers that do not. For them, watching our videos is very difficult, requiring special software installations that are cumbersome for casual users.

Today, the most common digital video format on desktop computers and mobile devices is known as MP4 (also referred to as H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 or AVC - (see note 1). Online, MP4 is widely used by popular web services such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Apple’s iTunes video distribution system, as well as by web playback systems such as Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight. Hardware devices using this standard include Blu-ray Disc players, iPhones/iPads and Android mobile devices, as well as consumer camcorders using the AVCHD system.

Supporting this widespread MP4 video standard would make it much easier for users to view and contribute video on Wikimedia projects. MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, but the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department has evaluated the situation and determined that the licenses that would be required for our use (AVC video encoding and decoding from MPEG-LA, as well as AAC audio codec from Via) have acceptable terms. Moreover, no royalties are charged currently for AVC video codecs (and only a small upfront fee is due for the AAC audio codec), with no restrictions on our current use of free software (see note 2). Commercial use of MP4 videos contributed to Wikimedia sites with a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license appears to be authorized under the terms of MPEG-LA’s royalty-free Internet Broadcast sublicense, as outlined below. Since using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only using open formats on our sites, WMF has opened this Request for Comments to seek community guidance.

To support the MP4 standard as a complement to the open formats now used on our sites, it has been proposed that videos be automatically transcoded and stored in both open and MP4 formats on our sites, as soon as they are uploaded or viewed by users (see note 3). The unencumbered WebM and Ogg versions would remain our primary reference for platforms that support them. But the MP4 versions would enable many mobile and desktop users who cannot view these unencumbered video files to watch them in MP4 format.

Dual formats would also support users who prefer to view video in open formats -- even if the original file was uploaded in MP4 format. And keeping all videos in both formats will serve as an insurance policy, giving us the ability to discontinue support for MP4 in the future, if legal or technological circumstances change. To be clear, the intent of this project is not to diminish our commitment to open formats, but to provide an interim solution that can enable more people to view and contribute video content on our sites, as open formats become more prevalent.

Views in favor of MP4 support

Those who favor adoption of the MP4 video file format point to the educational value of video for helping users learn in the medium that best fits their needs. As online video usage keeps growing rapidly worldwide, videos are key to serving our educational mission and Wikimedia is now lagging far behind other sites in this field.

A video of a cheetah, captured in slow-motion at 1200 fps. The video was released on Vimeo and converted to OGV format before uploading to Commons.
Many topics covered on our sites could be better explained with video (e.g. soccer, dance, human movement, cooking, travel). For example, videos like the one at right can provide important new information and complement text articles effectively. And yet only 0.1% of our articles now have video on the largest of our projects, the English Wikipedia. The lack of quality video for most topics on our sites will become more of a problem as video production and sharing become more accessible via mobile devices and more users start to rely on this medium for their information needs on other sites.

The MP4 proponents say that one of the major reasons why there are so few videos on Wikimedia sites is that we do not support the widespread MP4 standard. Instead, we rely on the lesser-known Ogg Theora and WebM standards, whose user base is vastly outnumbered by the many users of MP4 around the world. As of this writing, about 150 million of our users are still unable to view open video files on their browsers. For mobile phones and tablets, there is no practical way to play Ogg or WebM videos on the very popular iPhone and iPad devices, and only some phones can play WebM videos.

By contrast, MP4 is installed by default on most mobile devices and desktop computers, typically including hardware support that is much more efficient than software solutions for video encoding and decoding. This hardware support is much needed for mobile devices, to insure longer battery life required for extended video playback or recording. For mobile users, this is a major benefit of MP4 versus free software solutions.

Moreover, the creation tools for transcoding video into those codecs are not available on mobile devices, which are a natural platform for creating videos. And the multitude of robust video capture, editing, and sharing tools to popular services such as YouTube and Vimeo raises user expectations considerably. Sadly, free/open standards have not kept up with the state of the art -- not even WebM, which has Google's full support.

Lastly, it is worth noting that the non-profit Mozilla Foundation began planning to incorporate MP4 into Firefox and most of their products in 2012, and is planning to complete it in 2014. However, most linux distributions will continue to distribute Firefox without MP4 support. The Mozilla community also cares deeply about open formats, but Mozilla decided to compromise based on practical concerns. Members of our own community have recommended MP4 support for years, in email discussions dating back to 2012.

Since we would continue to support open video formats as well, MP4 supporters view their recommendation as consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's Guiding Principles, which state that "all material in our projects is available in free formats that do not require the user to install proprietary software": users would always retain the option to view or contribute files in open formats if they prefer, because all videos would be stored in dual formats (see note 4).

To sum up, MP4 proponents view video as important for serving our educational mission in a rapidly changing information landscape. They consider that MP4 support is essential for empowering our users to view, contribute and edit video to share free knowledge, even if this requires us to adapt our policies regarding the use of proprietary file formats. They recommend that we license this video standard at no cost (no royalties are due for free sites like ours), so we can support MP4 in addition to open formats.

Views against MP4 support

Those who oppose adoption of the MP4 video file format point to the free software objectives of the Wikimedia movement, which are a vital aspect of our mission (as recently affirmed by the Wikimedia Foundation board in Wikimedia Foundation's Guiding Principles). Those opposing MP4 adoption believe that in order for what we create to be truly free, the format that it is in also needs to be free, (else everyone viewing it would need to obtain a patent license in some form to be able to view it). Whatever effort we place in supporting video should be focused on free formats, so that our contributions back to the wider ecosystem encourage deeper adoption of free formats.

From that viewpoint, any software infrastructure in Wikimedia projects must adhere to community norms regarding intellectual property, patent status, licensing or encoding methods. Current community requirements are that free/open standards should be used at all times to encode and store video files on the servers that house our data, so that both our content and software can be redistributed without any restrictions. Proprietary video containers or codecs such as MP4 are not allowed on Wikimedia projects because they are patent-encumbered and their software cannot be re-licensed freely (though MP4 content can be freely re-licensed). We publish nearly all of the source code and configuration necessary to host our content under free licenses; supporting MP4 may mean making licensing-related compromises in the transparency of our video-related infrastructure. Furthermore, the licence arrangement will be secret (even though the FSF has made an older - but quite similar - version of the license available here). For that reason, opponents of MP4 support recommend that we continue to only support open and free license video formats on our sites -- which for now means limiting our use to Ogg Theora and WebM standards (some of the MP4 patents will not expire until 2028).

Some people have argued that recent events make the future for free formats look positive, and hence now is not the time to give up on them:

  1. Nokia lost its patent claim in Germany, and Nokia was the only one not signing the agreement with Google.[1][clarification needed]. This helps ensure VP8 really is patent-unencumbered.
  2. Google worked on VP9, which is the high quality successor to VP8 (the codec currently used in WebM). It is a matter of months, not years, when this will be widely available. And this time most of the important hardware makers are on board. This means VP9 could be potentially decoded efficiently on cell phones, like how MP4 is currently.

Some community members have suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation is in a unique position to encourage a wider adoption of open video formats by requiring users to use these formats to access our content -- and helping make the formats better as a result. Because of the significant traffic to Wikimedia projects, the argument is that we can afford to make a stand on principle and encourage long-term adoption of free formats, even if it impacts the short-term quality of our user experience.

Some have also suggested that it may be possible to develop free/open video player software for platforms that don't support Theora/WebM. While alternative solutions would require a significant investment, additional software development could help improve the basic media experience if we do not go through with MP4 support, as outlined here by WMF software architect Brion Vibber.

Other issues raised include concerns that MP4 support may increase video contributions, which would require more community curation work (just looking at the thumbnail is not enough like it is with images); or concerns that hosting or bandwidth costs for this video content may require more foundation resources. More points such as these may come up during this RfC, and can be reviewed in the Comments section below.

To sum up, MP4 opponents consider our free software goals and ideals to be as important as our educational mission, at least as far as content is concerned. They view MP4 support as a fundamental shift in our values -- and a major setback for the open and free software movements. They are prepared to stick with the current status quo, even if this means that millions of users cannot easily view video content on our sites, or contribute it directly if their devices produce MP4. They also hope to encourage users to buy different hardware and/or install free software on their devices, to promote the open and free software movements.

Note

This Request for Comments is presented by the Wikimedia Foundation to seek community guidance on whether or not to support the MP4 video format on our sites. We invite comments from all users: readers, contributors, curators or editors on Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, or any other site that uses content from our free media repository.

The RfC was prepared by WMF product manager Fabrice Florin, in consultation with many community and team members. This discussion will be facilitated by WMF community liaison Keegan Peterzell. We expect that this RfC will be closed by an uninvolved Commons editor or administrator in February 2014. If you have any questions or suggestions about this RfC, please add a comment below or contact us directly.

There was an office hours chat on IRC on Thursday, January 16, at 19:00 UTC about this RFC. The logs of that chat are available at meta:IRC office hours/Office hours 2014-01-16.


Question for the community

Should we support the MP4 video file format, in addition to open video formats?

Please state your support for one of the options below -- and sign your name in the appropriate section.

For more information, review this Background page, the Comments below, or this RfC's Discussion page.

Note partial support is harder to implement than full or no support, because it requires a special infrastructure to hide files or disable source downloads.

Full MP4 support

I recommend that we support the MP4 file format to both view and contribute videos, in addition to open formats. All videos would be automatically stored in both formats, to provide the best user experience on any platform.

  1. We are losing no options here and potentially gain a lot of new contributors in an area that looks glum on commons, videos. Since we retain assets in unencumbered formats it won't be a problem to reverse this move in the future, should it become necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I believe that full mp4 support is the only way to go at this juncture. I'd love a patent unencumbered alternative, but there isn't a satisfactory alternative to mp4 at this point in time, and if we don't support mp4, our video adoption will be greatly hampered. I certainly think we should support free (as in freedom) alternatives as they arise, but until then, if we want a good amount of video on our projects, we're going to need to support mp4. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a contradiction between your proposal and your goal. Wikipedia currently actively helps unencumbered formats by pushing users and application developers to use those formats. Your suggestion is to reduce this to passive support, whereby current users of unencumbered formats won't encounter any problems but no user or application developer is given any reason to start using or supporting those unencumbered formats. Formats take off if they have users and developers, so your proposal would cut off the oxygen supply of the formats you say you love. Gronky (talk) 10:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ultimately, our goal isn't to encourage the development of free video formats, it's to spread knowledge. We've gone more than a decade without Wikimedia having a way to spread educational videos in an accessible way. I agree with you that if Wikimedia adopts some level of support for mp4, it will at least slightly lower the amount of 'oxygen' driving video development (though I don't think WMF projects present a sizable source of it for video in the first place,) but ultimately, I view our ability to make knowledge accessible as important enough to warrant this tradeoff. (If it's a significant concern, we could also set a forced sunset date for our mp4 support, which would presumably restore a good portion of any development incentive we had cut off in supporting mp4.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha. So you think Wikipedia's help for free formats should be traded away. That's clearer than your first comment. I disagree. I think taking a stand for free knowledge is what makes Wikipedia unique and what brings in contributors and makes the WWW a better place. Gronky (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Every decision we make has tradeoffs, as much as I wish that wasn't the case. If we don't support mp4, many millions of users will not have access to any form of video on Wikimedia sites, and the users who can play the formats we currently support will only have access to about 40k videos. When it comes down to it: yes, I absolutely believe that enabling many millions of people access to educational videos in a technically proprietary format who currently can't watch any video on Wikimedia sites and allowing those people who can use open formats to access a greatly increased number of videos in completely free formats is worth the tradeoff. Our mission is to attempt to make the sum of all human knowledge as accessible as we can and as free as we can, and mp4 support coupled with transcoding wins on both those counts at the present time. (To avoid cluttering up the top of the support vote chain with a dialogue, let's move any further conversation out of the vote chain itself.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, every decision we make has tradeoffs, and this would be trading off free formats. I thought the mission was to make the sum of all human knowledge as accessible as we can for all users, not just rich users. If MPEG-LA gets its way, free software gets killed off and many millions of users will not have access to any form of video on the Internet. — Laurelrusswurm (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Full MP4 support, while not perfectly aligning with all of Wikimedia's guidelines, is a good compromise at this point given MPEG-LA's promise to not charge royalties in the Wikipedia use case for now and forever. That said, transcoding and primarily using open formats is good, while also allowing the vast majority of devices and platforms that use MPEG-4/AVC to be part of the multimedia workflow. Hopefully this will help spur activity in en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video and other video projects. -- Fuzheado (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is quite a big difference between a guideline and a mission. Jimmy Wales wrote, "A free encylopedia, or any other free knowledge, can be freely read, without getting permission from anyone. Free knowledge can be freely shared with others. Free knowledge can be adapted to your own needs. And your adapted versions can be freely shared with others." http://jimmywales.com/2004/10/21/free-knowledge-requires-free-software-and-free-file-formats/
    The problem is, this entire deal is predicated upon "MPEG-LA's promise to not charge royalties in the Wikipedia use case for now and forever."
    But What is MPEG-LA actually promising?
    • Is MPEG-LA promising not to levy royalties on all its formats forever? Because that would be the only way WMF would be sure of never having to pay royalties on MPEG-LA formats.
  4. Is MPEG-LA promising that all WMF users will be able to watch, use and reuse work in all MPEG-LA formats found on WMF websites in perpetuity?
  5. If MPEG-LA becomes obsolete when another proprietary software dealer puts it out of business, then what? Any promises will be null and void.
  6. One of the essential problems of a permission culture is licensing. Licenses can be changed when they come up for renewal. Today WMF is in a negotiating position of power, because it does not need this deal at all. It's the opposite for MPEG-LA, because every minute that passes makes WebM more likely to supplant it. If MPEG-LA can erode WMF's commitment to free software, it's likely to eventually achieve its goal of monopoly. On the day When free formats no longer exist, the tables will turn. MPEG-LA will renegotiate the deal, and WMF will no longer be in a position of power, but rather locked in a proprietary trap, where MPEG-LA can charge whatever it likes.
    A huge part of the problem is that the actual terms of the deal are secret. Would you buy a car or a house sight unseen, based purely on what the seller promises? — Laurelrusswurm (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Best interim solution for now. Videos are a sorely underused aspect on the Wikimedia sites, and we should be encouraging them where possible. Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 01:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Least bad option. This round of the format wars has been lost; sticking to WebM-only hurts our users and does nothing to advance our cause(s). If we want open formats to win in future rounds, our best chance is to arm ourselves with what we do best: the world's best content, and lots of it. That content is the only way we can get a seat at the table and make our opinions matter, and I'm afraid that means compromising and accepting a proprietary format for now. —LuisVilla (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC) (purely in my personal capacity)[reply]
    I don't think this affects your whole point. However, to be clear, we are not relying only on WebM. We already transcode automatically to Ogg Theora as well (see e.g. File:Artist’s_impression_of_the_black_hole_inside_NGC_300_X-1_(ESO_1004c).webm). There is no reason we can't add additional open formats in the future (see also the discussion about MPEG-1). Superm401 - Talk 00:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I support usage of mp4 video format and broadening audience for integrated educational video content within wikimedia articles and projects. The initial implementation shows much improved device coverage -- Mdale (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Full disclosre: I actively worked on the mp4 support in consideration and been a long time multimedia code contributor for the wikiemdia projects. The opinions represented are my own, and not of the WMF foundation. [reply]
    (Moved initial vote to 'upload only' where it belonged) Weak second Not as proposed (best user experience). Yes, we should accept MP4 uploads and transcode them. Visitors should see free formats by default, with a link to install appropriate players if they don't have one.
    I respect @Mdale's views a great deal in this area, and would like to see more data on device coverage and access in practice -- do we measure how many visitors see pages with video that they are unable to play? How many visitors play videos on the pages they visit? Implementing a test framework on 0.01% of visitors to gather data would certainly be alright.
    If a reader is unable to view video in Ogg/WebM we should detect that and show them other options. We do this today, but the options could be improved. Before adding an encumbered format as an option (even if via a link to a third party converter), we should add an image or animated gif - both of which work nicely for reusers. Further comments in "Contributions only" below. --SJ+ 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I see no reason why we shouldn't support this idea, as we really have nothing to lose in supporting this file format. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I have recommended this approach for years. Wikipedia originally perceived itself as being influential enough to drive adoption of open video formats, but clearly this has not happened. We will likely drive more adoption of open formats by actually having more video on the site and providing copies of those videos in open formats, while simultaneously not disenfranchising users who don't happen to use the few browsers that happen to support Ogg/WebM. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes. I understand the reasons why we might not be adopting MP4 (not a free format, etc) but I consider that such a thing is not substantial enough for us to consider. After all, all the potential MP4 video uploads to Commons will be free, and the license of the video is far more important, broadly speaking, than the license of the software with which the video is being made, or the format under which is being released. — ΛΧΣ21 03:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. WMF's mission is education, not the promotion of patent-free file formats. WMF's support for Theora for many years did very little to encourage the adoption of that format in browsers and devices. However, I don't think video should be a priority for WMF, since I think its educational value is low, compared to other missing content such as maps, slideshows and interactive diagrams. -- Tim Starling (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue we have not seen video with good "educational value" yet partly because of these technical issues, but also because we don't have good visual literacy or a collaborative system around video that would let awesome content bloom. So my challenge is to convince you otherwise through projects like en:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video when we can start getting critical mass and the piranha effect working in areas people have no idea can be great. :) -- Fuzheado (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WMF's mission is specifically free educational material, and that reasonably includes patent-free formats. darkweasel94 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Dswchen and in detail per SJ+ In effect the choice is having almost no video, or getting on with it and having an up-to-date educational site which includes lots of video. Smallbones (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Our commitment to Open Source is second to our educational mission. If, realistically, making the information available to a significant portion of the world (if not the vast majority) – especially mobile users – requires us to use a patent-encumbered format, then we should use that format.

    Making sure that we provide the open alternative remains important so that we do not force users to switch to proprietary solution, but it should not be done at the cost of preventing those readers who do not have the option from accessing contents. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Our mission starting from Nupedia is educational open content. Our differentiator/Unique Selling Proposition is open content. Britannica are the folks who do proprietary education. If we give up the open content part, we're just the same as Britannica. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, Kim Bruning... I thought our defining difference was the "wiki" nature of the projects and the fact that the organization had no commercial aims and offers all of the content for free (as in beer). The enormous popularity of Wikipedia seems entirely unrelated to the rate at which the content is reused - it is clear that the vast, overwhelming majority of users of Wikipedia content get it straight from the source. That doesn't mean that openness (free as in freedom) isn't important, it certainly is. But I think MPelletier is quite correct in describing the hierarchy of needs in the Wikimedia mission. NathanT 17:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the classification made by MPelletier is not relevant: open source is a tool for the educational mission of Wikipedia. Where can you learn from when formats are proprietary? Supporting open source is not a by-product of Wikipedia, it is one of its cornerstone. And support to open source also means rejecting proprietary software if other possibilities are available, which is the case here.
    @MPelletier (WMF), your username indicates that you work for WMF, but your user account is a redlink. Would you mind creating a basic user page (perhaps a redirect if you have one elsewhere) so it is easier for others to understand your role? -Pete F (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my apologies; I had not realized that my staff account did not have a userpage on Commons - I've added a soft redirect to point at my primary one on mediawiki.org. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Many people have terrible issues accessing video on Wikimedia sites, and for most of these people, this is because we don't provide transcodes to MP4 format. The restriction to free formats also makes it more difficult for uploaders to upload their video files, especially on Windows platforms (I would have to do quite a bit of researching and downloading to be able to convert to Ogg or WebM using my Windows machine). Video content is a key aspect of our educational mission, and we are currently failing to provide the best access to it. This, that and the other (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per Tim Starling exactly. Additionally, let us remember that also supporting non-free technologies is something we already do, in that we support (and spend effort to ensure we continue to support) proprietary browsers like Internet Explorer and Opera. Ijon (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. +1 for MP4 on the condition of prioritising source files using open codecs wherever possible and switching to Daala over H.264 in 2016 should MPEG-LA's terms deteriorate. Besides the standard arguments, my reasoning is that if we adopted MP4, then people would actually start uploading and viewing video content on Wikipedia. Then, in 2016, if a decision was made to drop MP4 and prefer Daala, some people would actually have a reason to switch. In contrast, right now, people don't care much about which codec we support since most people don't associate the likes of Wikipedia with video at all. Also, given how many source videos are in MP4, this could also boost traffic for sites like Wikinews and provide useful archive footage for the Wikimedia Commons. TavEspian (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Open source has always been important to Wikipedia, as it is imperative that everything we do can be spread as freely as possible. That being said, our main goal is not to support open source formats. Our main goal is to educate and spread information. Open source is a mean to an end, not a goal in itself. If keeping only to certain formats is hurting us, we should look for other solutions. /Julle (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
    Having followed the discussion, I've found some of the arguments against the suggestion to use MP4 convincing enough to retract my earlier support. /Julle (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I think an all or nothing approach, as some who has uploaded videos the biggest problem I find is that to convert to ogv or webm is that those sites that do it for free have size limits, and I have yet to find an open source program that I can run on my pc to do the conversion myself. I have videos that should we go mp4 would be immediately uploaded, in doing so I'd only support mp4 if WMF includes a conversion to ogv within the process to ensure all videos are duplicated in a free file format, that downloading for reuse should be automatically in ogv to encourage its uptake Gnangarra 06:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support. Per Tim and MPelletier ^demon (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. MP4 is widely used, and easy to edit with many video software. --Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 07:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strongly agree. --Itzike (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong support per Tim Starling, especially if non-patent formatted files are also automatically made available. Our primary mission is to support the spread of knowledge, supporting free software is a secondary goal. It would be nice if there were a suitable (read: widely adopted by our readers) open video format, but there is not, so to fulfil our primary mission we should open the door to MP4. Lankiveil (talk) 08:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  24. This is certainly a good alternative to make the videos accessible to many as we store them in dual formats, my support. -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 08:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support—important move forward, with advantages far outweighing doubts expressed below. Tony (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support - our prime aim is to share the world's knowledge and this will make it easier. Personal opinion not on behalf of WMUK Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. This will considerably facilitate the upload of videos. Pyb (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Our mission is about free knowledge distribution, we need to use the tools available--Chandres (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Je propose que le format MP4 devienne le format par défaut, et que tout téléversement, qu'importe le format, soit automatiquement transformé en MP4. Ça me permettrait de téléverser directement en .MTS pour avoir du MP4. Par ailleurs, pour les vidéos en full HD, il serait intéressant que la limite passe de 100 à 200 MO. Enfin, il faut comprendre que le libre n'est pas la solution à tout. On devrait toujours choisir l'option la plus intéressante. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Rough translation by Pleclown, not a support of the expressed position)
    I propose that the MP4 format becomes the by-default format, and that all uploads, regardless of the format, be automatically transcoded to MP4. This would allow users to upload directly .MTS files to get MP4. Besides, it would be interesting that the limit be changed from 100 to 200 MB. Finally, one must understand that free (software) is not the solution to all problems. We should always use the most interesting solution.
    Il est déjà possible de téléverser des fichiers de 1024 MB si l'on utilise UploadWizard. Voir COM:Chunked uploads. darkweasel94 13:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Reluctant support. We're too late in the evolution of the web video market that "hey, unless you support freely licensed formats, you won't be able to see educational videos on Wikipedia" to be much of a threat. Sometimes you have to do short-term deals with the devil. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - I acknowledge the moral and legal problems with the codec, but i think for pragmatic reasons we should take the same actions as Mozilla has. It's a shame people with mobile devices can't view our videos. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 11:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree! That would not be the same! "To avoid patent issues, support for MPEG 4, H.264, MP3 and AAC is not built directly into Firefox on desktop and mobile (Android and Firefox OS). Instead it relies on support from the OS or hardware" See MDN. -- Rillke(q?) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect - After Cisco's announcement, this is no longer the case. Full h.264 support will be bundled* (see comment below) with Firefox in the very near future. "We are grateful for Cisco’s contribution, and we will add support for Cisco’s OpenH.264 binary modules to Firefox soon. These modules will be usable by downstream distributions of Firefox, as well as by any other project." [2]. -- Matt (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That module gets a patent license only when it is downloaded by Firefox from Cisco at installation, so it is effectively non-free software in the countries where it matters. Also, it only includes the video codec and no audio. --AVRS (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You just reiterated what I originally said in the quote... '"support for Cisco's OpenH.264 binary modules'". The point of my comment is that H.264 will indeed be bundled with Firefox, which is definitively the case. I said nothing about the process in which it is done. H.264 has nothing to do with audio in the first place, so it's logical that the license wouldn't have anything to do with audio. I would also like more information on the non-free software in the countries where it matters statement. -- Matt (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enigmajr: (IANAL) I consider Firefox free software (except for the trademark, which is not functional; you can compile the source code to get the same functionality free according to the FSF [even though FSF would not endorse links to non-free add-ons]); non-free functional parts are not a part of Firefox. You get a patent license only if you copy what Cisco hosts; users or Mozilla cannot use the source code freely: the patent license does not apply to it. So if you change the module publicly, it will be non-free software (being able to propose a port to Cisco so it can choose to publish it does not make it free software). The binary is non-free and should not be considered a part of Firefox. Also, if Firefox actually has to download it separate, I don't think it can be called bundling (unless you are using a network installer which downloads Firefox, too…). --AVRS (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVRS: You are indeed in correct, bundling is probably not the best term to use here. However, realistically speaking, a vast majority of users will receive the Cisco binaries, so the root claim that native H.264 support is coming to Firefox still stands. I think we're getting pretty close to splitting hairs here, though, especially considering we're not discussing whether or not Firefox should add H.264 support (but I genuinely appreciate the civil discussion). -- Matt (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enigmajr: "H.264 has nothing to do with audio in the first place, so it's logical that the license wouldn't have anything to do with audio." — so you are voting in support of MP4 only for silent videos? ;) --AVRS (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVRS: Think about all the Charlie Chaplin we could enjoy! :) But no, you're correct that both MP3 and AAC are license encumbered, but that is outside of the scope of h.264 licensing. FWIW, Firefox has supported MP3 for years. -- Matt (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enigmajr: "Firefox has supported MP3 for years." — incorrect: checked into Nightly in December 2012, enabled in Nightly for Windows 7+ in February 2013 (released in Firefox 21.0), even later for Windows Vista (Fx 22.0), very recently for GNU/Linux with GStreamer (Fx 26.0), not at all on Mac OS X. --AVRS (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVRS: My apologies. Firefox has supported MP3 for 13 months. Not sure why we're still going down this rabbit hole. -- Matt (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting another RFC for MP3 and AAC? --AVRS (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVRS: ...No, I think we can reasonably assume this RFC covers both considering the MP4 container with H.264 only supports MP3 or AAC as the audio stream. -- Matt (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that MP3 is non-free, is not allowed at Commons, and is only supported by Firefox recently, using system libraries, because it is used with H.264. --AVRS (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please prove with a diff-link in their code-repo. They can write/announce a lot but they may behave like Google did in regard to dropping mp4 support from Chrome. -- Rillke(q?) 09:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come now, let's be reasonable. Google huffed and puffed but they didn't drop h.264 support for the same reason Firefox is adding it (and Wikimedia is considering it). There's zero incentive for Mozilla to go the other direction. -- Matt (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Enigmajr: Firefox is adding it because Google didn't drop it. Assuming Google lied, who lied to Google? --AVRS (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVRS: Google's pretty good at lying on their own, so it only makes sense that we should continue to use their codec from an idealogical perspective. This is an entirely off topic conversation at this point. -- Matt (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - if the legal team think that this is workable, then yes, this is the best solution. Our mission is to spread free knowledge, not to spread free file formats. I am perfectly happy to bring in MP4 if it means one more child gets an education. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I Strongly agree as MP4 is widely used, and easy to edit with many video softwares. It will bring a revolution in Wikipedia and also in Wikivoyage. Tourist will really like too. --Shrikarsan (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Per Chase me ladies: Our mission is to spread free knowledge, not to spread free file formats. Sylenius (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dschwen it's a net gain for free knowledge. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Per above. Fanatical upholding of "free content" principles harms the quality of Wikipedia, as well as on the fair use issue.Sorry for GT. MaxBioHazard (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. There are all kinds of non-free content on Wikimedia sites, including (but not limited to) non-free (fair use) media, quotes, links (to non-free content). Its presence means that quality of content is the priority: if the presence of non-free content is needed to improve quality, it is allowed. Therefore, non-free media formats also should be allowed, if it is legally possible. Free content zealots should seek a ban on fair use and quotations (including the whole Wikiquote thing) first. --Grebenkov (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Very good idea, opening lots of new possibilities for either viewing or contributing content.Efkbl (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support The fact that there are only 38,000 video files on Wikimedia is a testament to the need for h.264 support. While I fully support WebM (and Ogg, although WebM has rendered it essentially obsolete at this point), it's just not a viable, standalone alternative at this point. This isn't even taking into account the growth of mobile viewers, who are entirely left out of the current picture. It's important to note (from what I understand) every video would be made available in free, open formats AS WELL AS h.264. For those interested as well, I mentioned in a comment above that Firefox will be adding h.264 support because of a Cisco announcement, in which they announced a free, open source version of the codec (though still patent-encumbered). [3] Don't forget that one of the major codecs we're relying on at this point is WebM, which is (nearly) entirely controlled by Google at this point. -- Matt (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, Cisco's version of the codec apparently would have to be downloaded by Firefox as a proprietary blob, and it is video-only. --AVRS (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Same as my comment above, still not sure what your point is on this one. My comment was that Mozilla is indeed adding it, nothing more. Also, H.264 is just the video codec, and has absolutely zilch to do with audio in the first place, so I'm not sure what you mean by the video-only comment. -- Matt (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per Luis Villa above. Supporting MP4 at this time is a sensible tactic for getting more videos into Commons. Getting more video available in VPM will strengthen VPM even if we also have more video in MP4 in the short term. Filceolaire (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I think it is part of our mission to not only to provide access to knowledge directly, but also to help nurture the broader ecosystem of free knowledge and free software, and so I think fully free formats have a critical role in what we do. However, we are essentially a non-entity in this space right now, and whether or not we use the (no-longer-current-generation, only-patent-encumbered-for-so-long) h.264 makes no difference to whether or not a free format wins out in the long run. What can make a difference is if we become an important source of and destination for great video content. If using h.264 now helps that happen, it can put us into a better position to have an influence on the longer term future of open vs encumbered formats. I also don't see this making a practical difference to the feasibility of forking (which is already encumbered plenty by widespread use of non-free content, and in the case of video we'll be converting all non-free formats to free ones in any case.)--ragesoss (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Filceolaire. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. The recent board resolution regarding WMF guiding principles states that "we strive to use open source tools over proprietary ones, although we use proprietary or closed tools (such as software, operating systems, etc.) where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs." With the large number of users using browsers and devices with little to no support for Theora/WebM and the relative difficulty in producing videos in these formats, the free options do not meet our needs, which are "to make material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all … and to eliminate barriers that could preclude people from accessing or contributing to our projects." Per ragesoss, if we want to have some influence in the future of video formats, we need to actually have and use a lot of videos. For that to happen, we need to make it easier for people to contribute them. Mr.Z-man (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support Although free formats would be preferable, this is an instance where practical constraints imply that the the "Full MP4 Support" proposal is as close to "optimal" as we can get. Since all content will be supported with open codecs in addition to proprietary ones, the only thing lost fundamentally is Wikimedia's position to encourage open-codec adoption. Arguably, this is not part of Wikimedia's objectives, and even if it was, it is arguably not very good at it given the extremely limited adoption of said codecs by hardware manufacturers. Adfernandes 17h03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  45. Strong support. As Tim Starling noted, "WMF's mission is education, not the promotion of patent-free file formats. WMF's support for Theora for many years did very little to encourage the adoption of that format in browsers and devices." We've tried living the revolutionary dream, and it's gone precisely nowhere. We need to stop encumbering this part of our goal with politics and be realistic. — Scott talk 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support As I noted here last year the currently preferred VP8 is no longer free of patent licensing requirements. So there are no suitable patent-free formats. Either we abandon video altogether or we accept patent encumbered but free to use formats, including MP4.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Really good point. The exclusive support of WebM/Ogg is symbolic of our desire to live a world we don't. The fact that software patents exist affects all software regardless of its intentions or ideals. We need to look at things in terms of strategic goals and shifting the overall ecosystem towards more free knowledge distribution, educational video content free of advertisements, educational content that can be freely downloaded, reused etc. We should not sacrificing these goals, in a pursuit of "purity" ideology, play in-of-itself which is ultimately not reflect reality ( googles mpeg-la payoff, and the legal actions are taking place today over vp8 ( WebM ) usage. Certainly for device manufacturers, and operating systems its a different story, but for a web experience, we should be strategic and leverage technology we can while its agreeable with our participation goals. i.e there no royalties for webm for our usage today, and no royalties for mp4/h.264 freely distributed web content usage today. If that changes we should of course adapt. Today mp4 is an incredible tool, and path towards meeting critical needs of creating a participatory online video experience. Being strategic today, enables us to wield influence towards our goals in the future. Forcing an purity play, that once examined is not so pure, does not help the big picture goals. -- Mdale (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it's free as in beer, but completely fails on the free as in speech front: "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Our primary objective is to create a free (as in speech) encyclopedia. Britannica does a better job than us at making a non-free encyclopedia, I don't advise encroaching on their biome. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC) this is not to say that I oppose the distribution of free content. Far from it! Of course to distribute free content: first you need content, and said content must be free. :-P[reply]
    The point was simply that WebM is not "pure" un-encumbered if you consider google mpeg-la payment, and the legal actions against it. Clearly WebM has more of an explicit goal to be royalty free then h.264 but mpeg-la has stated the same for web usage. To conflate dual distribution of royalty free and less royalty free file formats so everyone can can access freely licensed content with proprietary pay for access copyright content distribution ( whatever the format ) is bit of a stretch. -- Mdale (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through the patent license agreement. It seems more like an extra defensive layer, and likely not incompatible with OSS. It'd be interesting to read more analysis on this. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Free content that can't be viewed by (most) mobile users doesn't help spread that content. Support formats that readers can render. Maplebed (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't spread free content if it is no longer free though ;-)
  48. Third choice: my preference would be no mp4 at all, or kept at arms length. But if we do have to bow to the mighty MPEG LA, then make sure we have copies of everything in a Free format, and mp4 is kept and clearly provided only as "provided for legacy hardware support only" --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - shabbat is for man, not man is for shabbat. Ziko (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Symbol support vote.svg Support In short, I think usability is a bigger factor than having every aspect of the content on WMF projects free. Yes, please, allow us to view and contribute videos on any platform.--Snaevar (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikipedia has been using the Free Software solution for a while not, and it has clearly not filled the need for a video format that people can be easily consumed around the world. At least the MP4 format isn't encumbered by DRM. Asperous (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Symbol support vote.svg Support This option seems to work best, with these provisos: It should be re-examined regularly, to take any potential worldwide VP9 adoption into account (Google hopes for 2016), with some sort of specified "worldwide availability metric" to measure against. As soon as it is possible to reasonably satisfy this "available to everyone" goal with a FLOSS codec, then we should switch MP4 support off, to re-establish our most ideal situation of additionally encouraging open licenses. Preparations should be made before MP4's potential 2016 licensing changes. All material uploaded in the meantime will be perfectly safe, and will potentially grow immensely. This will give our vision of "every single human being [currently alive] can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" [my addition] the most impact, therefor this option seem best in the long and short runs. There are a lot of people in various parts of the world with immediate access problems, both watching and submitting, whom are our priority. Quiddity (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Per Sylenius: The main mission of Wikipedia should be to spread free knowledge, not to spread free file formats. Aarcos 12:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Symbol support vote.svg Support A dual-format approach seems like the ultimate win-win. Use MP4 to reach more users, and if anything goes wrong, the open format versions still exist. Offering an alternative format doesn't seem to me to conflict with the goal of having every video in an open format, it just supplements it. It is especially difficult for novice users to determine why video and audio on Wikipedia do not work in the same way as other video sources on their device. These users will likely not watch the video, rather than determine how to download a different browser or use a different compatible device. All people should have easy access to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's data should be offered in an open, portable, and future-proof way. This proposal addresses both of those issues in a satisfactory way. --Supapuerco (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Symbol support vote.svg Support It is a better container and is more compatible. Seems like a no brainer. --Gregc (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I often browse from devices that do not support the current formats. PaleAqua (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Locking free content in formats that aren't supported is worse than using non-free formats that simply work. Nobody in the real world out there gives a shit about the format. --TMg 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Of course, we like OGV because it's free licensed. But who else is using it besides Wikimedia? We should get out of this prison. Benoit Rochon (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Symbol support vote.svg Support. I am not prepared to risk security problems by installing potentially buggy third party codecs, so I have never seen any video content posted to wikipedia. Most site visitors are not even tech savvy enough to figure out how to install those codecs. How do we know someone hasn't uploaded a video with an embedded buffer overrun exploit? Commonly used and officially maintained formats can be trusted. Niche ones cannot. --124.184.83.74 23:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Symbol support vote.svg Support. per User:Brion VIBBER. stop the madness, use the used format and migrate to open. proselytizing by turning blue is dysfunctional. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Slowking4. I'm not sure Brion has taken a position here. Consequently I'm not sure what your "per" is about. Can you clarify? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Finally, I've been socializing the notion of MP4 (H.264/AAC) video and audio transcoding output, which will allow us to serve video and audio to Macs, Windows 7/8 PCs, iOS, and other desktop and mobile platforms without additional local software installation. There are some ideological issues with even partial support of a patent-encumbered format, but we'll see how it goes – our goal is to get information out to people, after all." [4] Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, right. Thanks for the link, I'd forgotten about that part of the interview. It's interesting to see the breakdown of Wikimedia Foundation staff in this RFC, including comparing who has and hasn't weighed in yet. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Symbol support vote.svg Support As an artist I have created and uploaded videos to commons, I can draw things that free video shall never be available for, like the chinese space station however, as the embargo spells out as one example, and as another example, all the other admins turning up here and voting the exact same way to overturn the decision of the wider community, it's the fucking trolls who run and ruin the project that are the problem, not so much the format of the video. You're discussing the arrangement of the deckchairs on the titanic. I say, lay them out in mp4 format, creating them in ogg or mp4 is a trivial matter, as is copying them to a replacement project. Penyulap 01:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Symbol support vote.svg Support, with the caveat that a copy in a Free (as in speech) video format is retained at all times. One thing to consider is that the transcoding will actually create more libre content, as MP4 that would never be otherwise converted to Theora will now be available for browsers that support it. You could even think of it as "freeing" MP4-encumbered video. Titoxd(?!?) 02:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Symbol support vote.svg Support While I'd love to live in magic fairy land where all my computing tools are both free and of high quality, I live in real world poopy land where we sometimes have to pay to play with the big boys (and girls). I've been working in the professional video/animation world for almost ten years. The one time I had to prep files for WebM and Theora was a unpleasant experience, to say the least. My recollection is that the tools (on MacOS X) were kind of a joke — the choices were either really crappy, ultra basic, and free, or way beyond what I was willing to spend on this particular project (to the tune of $700+?). I finally found a command-line script that worked for me. That sort of thing may fly in Linux land, but no way is that gonna fly in the pro video world, let alone for Joe Schmoe. Or maybe we should stick to WebM/Theora and force people to use BeOS while we're at it. No thanks. Damienivan (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Symbol support vote.svg Support I got tired of format wars back with VHS vs BETA. Please support the one true video format.--192.48.154.5 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
  65. Symbol support vote.svg Support H.264 is increasingly supported by hardware. E.g. both my laptop and my phone have hardware H.264 decoders and the people that made them have already paid into the MPEG LA. in fact the MPEG LA have said that H.264 encoded internet video that is free to end users will never be charged royalties. People worrying about patents simply don't understand that it's hardware companies like Intel and Qualcomm who pay the patent fees, not end users.
  66. Symbol support vote.svg Support There are millions of low end smart phones being sold across the developing world every day. mp4 will be the only way to reach these million of users that have no other technology at their disposal, they simply can't "buy" a fancy new phone that can decode WebM in software. Its feels arrogant to put self righteous ideological free software purity before helping people access free knowledge. Why prevent these users from accessing free content? No one is proposing removing our strong and unwavering commitment to free formats, only adding support for people that have no other way to access this free knowledge 189.168.237.191 04:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are so many such phones, why isn't this RFC swamped with people from developing countries pleading for MP4 video? I know one country in the developing world (richer than the average Africa country but poorer than the Latin America average) and the number of people who get an internet signal on their phone is somewhere between two and five percent (i.e. the rich); the normal people buy scratch cards at the local shop that give them 60 minutes internet access from their laptop/desktop. I live in the developed world and I can't view the WWW on my phone. Half my friends can, half can't. I get a laugh out of this fairytale that the developing world's education problems stem from a lack of MP4 video. Gronky (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because our readers are severely underrepresented in such policy discussions. Which is why we get overwhelming amounts of unpractical Opensoucre fanatism from geeks who think that transcoding videos manually before uploading them is a totally normal and acceptable thing. --Dschwen (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jeez, Dschwen, I'm amazed you are having a crack at all us geeks now. Whatever happened to staying mellow? You are coming over as more than a teensy bit fanatical yourself. Stay off the coffee for a day. -- (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dschwen, I don't think under-representation is that big a factor, but if it was, it might explain why we're not swamped, but you should still be able to show me a few, let's say five users from developed countries saying that lack of MP4 is a problem for them. Can you? Gronky (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Symbol support vote.svg Support Five years ago, I demoed an open-sourced Flash-based Ogg Vorbis audio player for Internet Explorer users. I asked staff about the minimal changes needed to support it on the Toolserver. I was told to forget about it since they wanted to use the native platform libraries. If they were truly dedicated to FLOSS ideals: 1) they would've 2 years ago pressured Google to follow-through on dropping H.264 from the browser and 2) implemented a software WebM decoding on the iOS Wikipedia App. The war is over now. Time to focus efforts on the 3D Printing/Oculus Rift revolution and Wikipedia Zero (I hope they come to AT&T next!). —Dispenser (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: Thanks to crap tools for Theora & WebM, users are uploading animations in GIF instead — User:Dispenser/GIF check. —Dispenser (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Symbol support vote.svg Support Getting more contributors is what matters in the long run and MP4 is the current defacto standard for video content production. Cochonfou (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Symbol support vote.svg Support this option, but I'm also sympathetic to the "viewing only" option below. It's unfortunate, but this is the world we live in. The one thing that is not negotiable is that Wikimedia must never require the use of encumbered software. This proposal does not compromise that. De Guerre (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Any mean to ease contribution and consultation is a good move. Joël Brogniart 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support. opening to more standards, even closed-patented ones, is a good thing, as it encourages more content contribution and more compatibility. Using obscure (even if open) standards will make wikimedia a closed off silo. ugilad 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Symbol support vote.svg Support If "All videos would be automatically stored in both formats", that's enough for me. Contributors should be free to use whatever format is more convenient for them, provided users should also be free to choose whatever format they want to access the video. Litlok (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Symbol support vote.svg Support As I responded to in a comments section below - this is about the culture of Wikimedia in general. Do we want Wikimedia to be about the continued characterization of being closed-minded and "tech elite" focused, or do we want it to be open-minded and "the general population of the world" focused? If we truly want (as I do) Wikimedia to be focused on everyone, then more openness (in terms of access) is a good thing. Internet Explorer is still the dominant web browser on conventional desktop/mobile computers in terms of web access share. Safari Mobile is still the dominant mobile phone web browser in terms of web access share. Until an overwhelming majority of web browsers support open/free formats, if we want Wikimedia to be open to all, we need to support what an overwhelming majority have. Ehurtley (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Symbol support vote.svg Support I support usage of the mp4 video format. We should be aiming as always for more accessible video formats, so this makes perfect sense when the vast majority of cameras and smart devices universally produce H.264 videos.
  75. Symbol support vote.svg Support I have thought that not using a format that was actually supported by a serious number of devices was insane from the start. H.264 is what everyone uses so it should be supported. For example it is very difficult to view these videos on iOS and on Windows and Mac OS X these codecs aren't installed by default. Eraserhead1 (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Symbol support vote.svg Support To provide the best user experience on any platform. --Muvon53 (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Symbol support vote.svg Support For ease of import video. Prométhée33 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Symbol support vote.svg Support MP4 is now the de-facto standard container and MPEG-4 Part 10/H.264 the de-facto standard codec. There are a wide range of tools, free and commercial, that support it. Most mobile devices support it. It seems not very wise to exclude the majority of mobile devices and force the majority of desktop users to install additional plugins to view Ogg Vorbis, WebM or VP9. This looks like a religious war to me, a little pragmatism would be nice. Especially since this isn't about removing support for free codecs, but to add additional support for the de-facto standards. People who care about these difference will still have the option to avoid MP4/H.264. DarkDust (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Symbol support vote.svg Support No important cause to decline. --A1 (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Symbol support vote.svg Support For a significant part of the population, WebM/Ogg can be used only with additional effort. The barrier to consuming and providing media should be as low as possible. Stefan Bethke (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per 64·65 Support opinion. Yjs5497 (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Muvon53, UX first. --Trickstar (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Symbol support vote.svg Support Those opposing arguing that content must always be avialable in a free format miss the fact that it will be available in a free format, while ignoring the accessability issues for those that have no access to content in a free format. If we want our content to be accessable to all users, we are unfortunately tied to what's on the market, and the majority of devices on the market do not support free formats. It is the same as with GIF, JPEG (and possibly MP3); those are patent-encumbered too, but we have to use it, because our content would be inaccessable otherwise. Edokter (talk) — 11:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edokter: GIF and JPEG are not considered patent-encumbered. MP3 is patent-encumbered, and is not supported at Commons. --AVRS (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AVRS: Really??? Even after patents expire, websites are still being sued. We also supported GIF while its patents were still being monetized. MP3 has patents, but no fees are due for simple hosting them. Edokter (talk) — 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are patent trolls. They thrive in this field thanks to software patents. Do you want Wikimedia to support those who help patent trolls exist? --AVRS (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikimedia is the wrong place for format wars. --TheK (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Symbol support vote.svg Support"The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh, Babylon 5 Cverlo (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Weren't the Vorlon's pretty hard line about not compromising (ie planet killers...)? Bawolff (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Symbol support vote.svg Support At the end of the day, we want to reach out to as many people as we can (eventhough it may not be our ideal scenario). 83.228.184.58 13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion the hardware support is a killer argument. As a addition to the free formats, and no royalities which have to be paid, I do support this. --LordOider (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Symbol support vote.svg Support per all of the above Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm a savvy computer user and professional programmer. I cannot play Wikimedia content, either video or audio. I could figure out how to fix this, but it's too much effort. If I can't see it, I suspect the same is true for the vast majority of our readers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm in favor of full MP4 support for reasons stated above. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Symbol support vote.svg Support Clinging to standards not commonly used for ideological or political reasons is foolish. If the primary mission is to share knowledge and educate, the methods the facilitate that and reach more people are the best methods. Thank you for considering this change. -- --Xiao-zi (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Luis Villa and Tim Starling. NathanT 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Symbol support vote.svg Support as the point of Wikimedia is free knowledge, which this should help. Free software and formats are nice but we shouldn't be fanatical about it at the cost of the primary purpose of sharing knowledge. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing wrong in free content in a widely used file format. --Martina talk 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Symbol support vote.svg Support For all the reasons mentioned above, signature: Z.babin (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Symbol support vote.svg Support Because this will improve usability of wikipedia a lot Stefan2552 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Symbol support vote.svg Support I am of the mind to treat this as the US Supreme Court would when interpreting the how the constitution applies to a divisive issue. Per the open source guiding principle, "although we use proprietary or closed tools where there is currently no open-source tool that will effectively meet our needs", so the section arguing against this explicitly allows for exceptions. Yet the very next section makes no such exception after it states, "The Wikimedia Foundation aims to make material in the Wikimedia projects broadly accessible to all". I don't have an opinion on the issue as to which is "best", but the guiding principles make it clear which is the right choice for this question. Ted McCabe19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Symbol support vote.svg Support per IlyaHaykinson (talk · contribs). WMF is the tail trying to wag the dog in this case. Refusing to support the most widely accepted video format will do more to hurt our mission (delivering information to the world) than to influence vendors toward free and unencumbered codecs. We are better off providing full support for MP4 while also supporting efforts to get full adoption of free codecs into more browsers. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain how we can achieve "full adoption of free codecs", when your proposal is that (1) video submitters shouldn't have to use free formats, that (2) Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to make their computers able to display free formats, and (3) application developers shouldn't have to add support for free formats in order to see Wikipedia videos? It's like saying "I'm against the sowing of oats or caring for the field, but I support having a great harvest next year". Winning will take more than just words of support! Gronky (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without having at least upload support for MP4, we're never going to have a significant video library. If we want a seat at the table in determining what the next major codec will be (VP9, HEVC), we need to have more videos and use them on our sites. We have something like 40,000 videos compared to 120,000,000+ on YouTube and 25,000,000 on Dailymotion. Why would any browser vendor or hardware manufacturer care at all about supporting videos on Wikimedia, when we're such a tiny fraction of the market? Thinking that Wikimedia has any say over the future of web video in our current state is completely delusional. Mr.Z-man (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, a "seat at the table" carries zero weight if everyone knows our "policies" are just a wishlist that we will ignore if necessary to display the next major codec. Gronky (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We promote full adoption of free codecs by supporting and coordinating efforts to implement support for those codecs in browsers. Until browsers support free codecs to a sufficient degree, Wikimedia's refusing to support proprietary codecs is like Canute ordering back the tide. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "supporting and coordinating"? The lack of support for free codecs is not due to a lack of "support" from Wikimedia, nor to lack of an organisation to help with "coordinating". Wikimedia doesn't have any influence in that domain. If they did, they would have "supported and coordinated" this work years ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion. I sympathise. You clearly wish there was an easy way, but unfortunately your suggestion equates to doing nothing and giving up. Gronky (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Symbol support vote.svg Support Most of what it does it to take the difficult conversion issue to an automated central service. It is important that free content is available in free formats, but there is not importance that it may be ONLY available in free formats. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikimedia is the wrong place for format wars. Make it as as easy as possible. --Stefan Bellini (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikipedia's mission is to spread free information, not patronizing users. --Oefe (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Symbol support vote.svg Support the third world countries are very fan of this format, this format is increasingly present throughout the electronic product made ​​in china and it is clear if you want a high penetration of wikipedia projects must not only adopt this format May all size opening can for high flexibility and adaptation with changing digital world caused by the real environment and technological boulversement --Bachounda (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikipedia is about free knowledge. Exotic video file formats have kept people around the world from getting access to free knowledge. It's a shame that we've not acted earlier. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  104. I fully support the H.264 standard and believe that it should be implemented as a wider audience can then be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.235.101.32 (talk)
  105. Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm in favor of full MP4 support for reasons stated above. --Wvk (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Symbol support vote.svg Support The Cheetah video example on the page would not play on my Apple iPad or my Windows 7 PC using IE or Safari. I could try to follow the instructions to update my PC but it would be easier to find another Cheetah video. If I wanted to reuse this video on another web site I would have to post instructions on how to modify users PCs. No Thanks, uses the format everybody else supports. Wikipedia, the web site with videos most readers can't view. -- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Symbol support vote.svg Support The potential gain through increased accessibility and usability outweighs the potential loss of using a non-free standard. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Symbol support vote.svg Support Was looking forward to such an improvement. Uploading a video now is just too hard, I uploaded only one, once, and I needed a secodn person to convert to .ogg, 'cause I really was not able to do it, even following all the instructions. --Sailko (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Symbol support vote.svg Support it is good improvement. Because uploading Video at commons is too hard to me. Encoding time is too long and it is not easy to encode videos. I think many videos will be uploaded if we support MP4. --콩가루 (talk</spn>) 14:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ori (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Symbol support vote.svg Support The more videos the better. --Nameless23 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Symbol support vote.svg Support During last Wikimania, I asked the Foundation's Storytellers Team about making their video more easy-to-use for people like me, who constantly hold lectures on contributing to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects (as part of the WMIL chapter). Since in most of the computers in places I get to lecture there's no way to show the videos whilst in the free formats, I have to convert them beforehand. For this reason, I currently find the videos Wikimedia produces not very useful (at least while not on YouTube). For always being on the safe side, not knowing also the bandwidth limits in places I'm asked to lecture, I always download the videos at home and show them in the lecture offline. Having everything in MP4 will certainly make it all more accessible for me and for others. Ldorfman (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Symbol support vote.svg Support Many users, especially schools and educational users, will be left behind without MP4 support. I don't see any rational arguments opposing it, only ideological brinkmanship. 2.107.114.197 09:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Orikrin1998 128px-Nuvola man icon.pngNuvola apps email.png 12:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Symbol support vote.svg Support Importing and watching videos should be as easy as possible, even for muggles of computer science. If there is a better and widespread open format in the future, then shall it be the one. Wikimedia and Wikipedia built their strength on the simple fact that millions of users use it everyday. Videos should be available for each and everyone of them. Jojva (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Symbol support vote.svg Support Quark67 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Symbol support vote.svg Support MPEG-4 Part 10 is a widely implemented, very well documented standard and format, and more and more devices support it but not Ogg Theora/WebM. —Observ (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Symbol support vote.svg Support Imzadi 1979  23:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Symbol support vote.svg Support. This will be very useful as an educational resource. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Symbol support vote.svg Support As Musset said : "qu'importe le flacon pourvu qu'on ait l'ivresse" ; one of the most popular codec, only way to contribute and acess easely to those importants videos.
  121. Symbol support vote.svg Support I am for use of MP4. But, for supporting free software, we must put OGG in first and, if the user can't see the vidéo, select the option "See in MP4". –– tinoterramus (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC+1)
    I think you actually are supporting something similar to #Partial MP4 support - Viewing only, but I'm not sure. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikimedia is about free information, however we get it to people. Its' disingenuous to talk about formats restricting people when the unencumbered formats we use will continue to be available OwenS (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Symbol support vote.svg Support Let's keep hurdles to contribute as low as possible -- Wotan
  124. Nobody uses these strange file-formats you have to convert your videos to if you want to upload them here. I never understood why commons only accepts this crap instead of normal video-files. Weissbier (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Symbol support vote.svg Support אבנר (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Symbol support vote.svg Support To spread knowledge around the world should be our first directive, and a codec is only a tool and not a holy grail-- epiktetos
  127. Symbol support vote.svg Support Give the people what they want. NLIGuy (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Symbol support vote.svg Support At the moment, dual format support seems like the best solution. We're not an island, but part of the rest of the internet after all.. – Danmichaelo (δ) 21:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely. It's way beyond time that we stop pretending that using standard file formats is morally wrong, and way beyond time that we start realising that accommodating users and uploaders is vastly more important than pushing the free-software POV. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Symbol support vote.svg Support leaving the open source codec as primary choose with the MP4 being used as backup for mobile etc (maybe basing on user preferences and UA). --Vituzzu (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Symbol support vote.svg Support Some of our users have no control over the software that they have access to at libraries, schools, work, internet cafes, etc. It's good to prefer open source software, but refusing to make educational materials available to people who realistically have no other option is not consistent with the goal of providing the sum of human knowledge to these people. I prefer full access, with all videos uploaded as MP4s additionally being automatically available in a free format. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Symbol support vote.svg Support Ovedc (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Symbol support vote.svg Support. Our initial goal is the distribution of knowledge and making it available. I see no reason why we shouldn't support this idea. Danny-w (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is a reasonable.--Saehrimnir (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Symbol support vote.svg Support MP4 is available in music and videos, so it'll be easier to convert media files. Who would ever install additional apps and use .ogg? And if downloading isn't okay, it would not meet commons's purpose, 'free database.' + This is the second account of Jytim. I'm saying this to avoid voting two times, by my mistake. Jytim4661 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tim Starling. Andreas JN466 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Symbol support vote.svg Support MP4 is the easiest way for most users to contribute as well as to view video online. To specht (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand the ideological Platonic view that Wikimedia should be 100% free, however pragmatically I believe the success of Wikimedia is more important and it should be as accessible to as many people as possible. With that said I think we should still find ways to encourage use of non-proprietary formats. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Symbol support vote.svg Support the wikimedia projects must reach more people and that is why I recommend that wikimedia must support all types of open media and not just the MP4 Bachounda (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Insistence on supporting only some media formats very problematic. This is especially evident in HTML5 Standard. Supporting all video formats, will bring users to add more video content to the wiki. --EffiB (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support The sea of oppose votes down there is the epitomy of Wikimedia's problems. Too many geeks!!! No one knows how to reencode their MP4 video into Ogg Vorbis or whatever bizzare "free" format we apparently use around here. No. Just no. I use Ubuntu Linux, and even I walk away as soon as I'm forced to google stack exchange for some hacky solution that most likely requires terminal code. Just no 🙅. I think someone here said something like "I found a command line tool that converts the video for you". Good for you & your command line tool. The vast vast majority of the contributors that everyone on this project is so eager to attract will simply say "eww. command line?? wtf is that. nvm." Making people jump through technical hoops is a very easy way of ensuring that only the most persistent geeks will stick it out and manage to upload anything.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 03:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can folks lay off the thoughtlessly aggressive and hostile "fanatic geeks" comments please. If you want to say that Commons is not friendly enough to newcomers, fair comment, that is no reason to attack volunteers with a commitment to open knowledge and free and open software that have invested significant unpaid time over the years to make this project a success. Thank you -- (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad choice of words? That being said, there are many many contributors here (like myself) who have very little technical knowledge but still upload high quality content. Imagine how many high quality video contributors are giving up on Commons because format purists here are requiring rare and nonstandard encodings?? Those who know how to recode videos into Ogg whatever can still do that and upload their own videos like that—just make it easier for the non technical artists pleasee
    Also I just wanted to add—I think using our influence to force viewers to install codecs or switch to "freer" devices is a very very bad idea. When Ubuntu Firefox dropped flash support that was the most annoying thing ever. I wound up installing Chrome so I could watch my vimeo and youtube videos. I was not going to sit around and wait for google to make an HTML player or something. And do note that the iphone browser does not support any of these "free formats". So basically it's literally impossible for most people to watch these videos bc i don't think codecs are things you can just install in the app store. Not very free in my opinion if they prevent people from accessing it.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You may chose to insist on moot points and on ignoring the other side’s arguments, but insults is a “problematic” and “unhelpful” approach to the issue (to use the prefered euphemisms that will hopefully keep me safe from being blocked over «bad choice of words»…). -- Tuválkin 23:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ?¿ Wanna tell me which points you think are moot? && what do you mean 'being blocked'…—Love, Kelvinsong talk 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your initial argument is one for creating new and simpler ways to convert videos to free formats before uploading them to Wikimedia, not that Wikimedia should accept or use non-free file formats. The desire for more viewers should not trump Wikipedia’s mission to only distribute content in truly free—and not patent-encumbered—formats. The ends do not justify the means, and stating that it would be great that there were more viewers does nothing to address the plethora of problems raised by those of us who are against this proposal. Encouraging the use of patent-encumbered formats simply hurts those who cannot view/use them due to legal, financial, or philosophical reasons. There is absolutely no reason why manufacturers of modern devices like the iPhone cannot support open formats, save the desire for total control over their customer’s devices. (And addressing your aside: Flash is still supported by Firefox in Ubuntu [Vimeo and Youtube work just fine], just not the newest version; this was a decision made by Adobe, not Mozilla, so it has nothing to do with this situation.) Aibara (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard this argument a few times now, that MP4 simply hurts those who cannot view/use them due to legal, financial, or philosophical reasons. Since nobody is proposing to replace any free format with MP4 precisely nobody will be worse off than before. --Dschwen (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of proprietary software is to first attract users, and then lock them in to the format so they can use nothing else. The point is to achieve monopoly by eliminating competition - in this case, free software. If they succeed in killing off free video software, everybody will be worse off than before. Even those of you happily using Mp4 formats, because MPEG-LA decides what terms it will license its formats under. Pretty nearly every EULA I've read grants the licensor the right to change the terms at will. You don't actually own your proprietary software, you only license it. — Laurelrusswurm (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I see two sorta separate issues here. The first one is that practically no one knows how to make or convert video into Ogg Whatever, and is btw an issue that literally nobody here has suggested a workable solution to. Only the most experienced graphicists know how to do this—ie for me the only reason I know how to convert to Ogg is because I have a background in 3D design and rendering and the software I used happened to be able to export to Ogg. This transcends mobile/desktop boundaries—the Ubuntu user is no different from the iOS user or the Windows user (except the Ubuntu user probably has probably copied and pasted prepackaged command-line strings from google).
    The second is that it's impossible to view content on the most common platform people use. You can drive to Cupertino and yell at the Apple people & Steve Jobs's ghost all you want but as you said they're not going to support it. Your insistence on "free formats" is locking more people out than it's letting in. In fact it's not letting anyone in bc as Dschween said, there are still going to be Ogg videos.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. All anyone needs to do is download a free copy of any of a number of free software video editing packages. My own experience is with Kdenlive, which works just fine in Ubuntu Studio. All I had to do was drag and drop the video onto Kdenlive and tell it to to render as WebM. I've been using free software Operating Systems for a few years now and have never had to use a command line for anything. You can find free software tools that work in your proprietary system of choice here: http://www.webmproject.org/tools/ XBMC is a multi platform FLOSS media player you might try: http://xbmc.org/download/Laurelrusswurm (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Idk about you but getting people to install 3rd party tools is probably an exercise in futility. Getting software successfully installed on linux platforms is a very difficult ordeal that typically involves pages of sourceforge wiki manuals, .blah config files, choosing the right download package (between "nightly" "alpha" and etc versions) and in severe cases, compiling. (Unless of course it's in the software center, but it's still difficult to find what you need as you no longer have google to help there) Much of the stuff for Windows is just adware or freemium junk that stamps watermarks or asks you to fill out a survey first. Would actually probably be easier to just host a converter here on Commons (though it would probably be a big server drain).
    && btw, I went to the iOS section of that XBMC player website. First sentence:
    "To install XBMC for iOS you must have a jailbroken iDevice".
    The Apple TV section wants you to install a 'linux based operating system'. 😶—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  142. per Dschwen and Tim Starling. Important is not the filetype but the content. But until there is a proper format here, I can upload videos on youtube. --Ralf Roleček 23:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Make it simple to use. This decision doesn't prevent the use of free video formats. Trizek from FR 16:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Reading about this on the Internet leads me to support MP4 compatibility. It seems to be the technoogically superior format, as well as the one compatible with the most devices. Using MP4 will help people participate who don't have the hardware or software required to get videos into one of the license-free file formats. Soap (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Gilgamesh (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  146. --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support User friendliness is key and Wikimedia is not influential enough to turn the tide for the big masses to start using open video formats. Even if there wouldn't be technical issues to overcome. Waiting for possible future changes will not speed up the use of video on the different Wiki-projects, it would still take some time for these changes to become mainstream. Photo competitions like Wiki loves Monuments were possible because there were no technical hurdles for contributors. Content donations by GLAM's are also possible because they already have the files in formats that can be used. (Large scale) projects for more and better (use of) video content will not be possible without the possibility for people to use codecs they don't have to think about. Ter-burg (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  148. In spite of the not unreasonable qualms some have about adopting a format with patent baggage, we shouldn't be making this an ideological war. Pragmatism should win out. MP$ is a much used format, and if we want to encourage users into contributing to and using Commons, mobile is likely to prove a key route. Here, the dominance of MP4 as a format in the smartphone market indicates that we should at least support it along with the other formats already in place. Illuminatusds (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Partial MP4 support - Viewing only

I recommend that we support the MP4 file format, but only to view videos: users could not contribute MP4 files, only open standard files. All videos would be automatically stored in both formats, to provide the best user experience on any platform.

  1. I support this option because I browse WP from a mobile device that only supports h264. There are oftentimes videos (and more frequently, audio) that I cannot play because my devices don't support them. I support keeping master files in free formats, because maybe someday 10 years from now we will have widely-supported free codecs, and Wikipedia should future-proof itself. But that day isn't today, and out here in the real world using only free formats for viewing only prevents users from access to WP content. 66.68.151.141 18:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this option because we want the content te be most widely available. This is however one more case of having to deal with somebody else's problem (i.e., the lack of patent-free codec on mobile devices). Maybe a more constructive idea would be to transcode videos to h.264, but add a banner on one side saying something like “You are currently watching a video in a patent-encumbered format because your mobile dovice doesn't support anything else.” This would help raise awareness of the issue, and get people to, maybe, pressure their phone vendors to include these codecs. Better than only silently hiding the issue, IMO. --OlivierMehani (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support this option - but only in that way, OlivierMehani described above. Users may see MP4, if their devices are not able to play free formats - but they have to be informed, that there is a problem with that video. Otherwise, I do really prefer the option: no propiretary MP4 in WP at all. Bgruen (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. To avoid a flooding of videos it is ok that only a upload of free formats is possible. The viewing with mobile devices is important, so viewing mp4 is ok. But I also find the idea of OlivierMehani (see above) with bannered videos great! Its a good chance to stress the importance of free file formats! --RudolfHenze (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Partial MP4 support - Contributions only

I recommend that we support the MP4 file format, but only to contribute videos: users could upload MP4 files, which would then be transcoded into open formats. Users could not view them in MP4 format -- and could only view these videos on devices that support open formats.

  1. Partial support sounds like a good trade-off --Alessio Damato (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's right there in the mission. MP4 is encumbered for reusers, and we can't make that not the case unless software patents suddenly get killed. We should, however, be able to ingest it - David Gerard (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If this can be done without using donor money to pay for patent licenses, that would be good. If upload support means WMF needs to buy a license, then no! While I can see the benefit of users uploading MP4 if it is possible within free licenses (see geni's post in the next section), I don't think video should be a WMF priority, so this support shouldnt be seen as a reason for the WMF to devote programmers to build this. The priority should be support for existing open file formats which are editable to provide educational 2D and 3D models, e.g. for Chemistry, Plotting, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It is a good compromise between the fact that Wikimedia's projects have to use free format to publish its contents and the fact that a lot of the potential contributors are not able to encode their videos in an open format. Pamputt (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This seems the best option, giving all the benefits of keeping Commons open for all interested contributors. This should apply not just for MP4 video but any other non-open format that we can design tools to ingest. There is no need to "deal with the Devil", this is a win-win. As for devices that are designed to not support open formats, for goodness sake, forget them, they are complete and utter lemons that vanish within a year or two (just check the last 10 years of device development) and we should be vocal and persistent in presenting that point to the public and any large company that believes that Microsoft's model of product lock-in is still a viable long term cash cow. By the way, as I understand it, if the WMF designs and hosts tools to break proprietary formats and makes the video available to the public in an open standard, the only legal entity that would be sued would be the WMF, not the unpaid volunteers involved - how refreshing it would be if the WMF were to make a stand and take any legal risks here rather than plead plausible deniability and leave unpaid and uninsured volunteers to pay damages. :-) -- (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. To me too this is the best compromise. It doesn't address the most important part: that it hassles our end-users a great deal, but I can't justify the difficulty it provides for re-use to find that acceptable. This is at least something. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I want to stick as much as possible to free codecs and we do have good codecs in place. From that viewpoint I'd vode "no". But there is another perspective to it, taking the video initiatives a step further, from only storing flat files to a community producing videos. Here we have to deal with raw material, collaborative editing etc. There are many more challenges and one attempt for a solution would be a video editing server described more in details in this post: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129671.html --Manuel Schneider(bla) 11:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Ideally, we would only support free formats, but given the domination of mp4 on the market and the difficulty of converting videos, we should allow users to upload mp4 videos. As to playing video, I think there is currently enough browser and device support to keep only free output.--Strainu (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree that the dominant file format means we need to be able to comprehend what is ingested. But it is not okay to ingest and spew using that file format if it means we are putting on someone else's intellectual property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion, license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David Gerard on this. On the whole it is of far less importance to me as there is no guiding principal or idea that WMF is intended to be an *exclusive* repository of anything. Others do nothing but video, and that's great. I want there to be video, but it is not part of a grant vision to out-YouTube YouTube, or Vimeo, or any other huge site with billions of hours of video. User:Fuzheado is right - we lack the present toolset to be able to address such volumes of video, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.--BradPatrick (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I'm okay with this as a second choice, although since we will want to retain the originals in any case (so that we can re-encode them to better future formats), I don't see why we shouldn't also serve them to end-users.--ragesoss (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Permitting to upload videos as they are, without the need to convert them, will certainly boost the things up incredibly. Given that the average proficiency with such software is low, and that the creative drive (and even talent) occurs more often, we should be more welcoming, at least with this pretty universal codec. But as a part of upload process, the video is better to be converted to a free format (unless this will lead to quality loss), and stored only like that. (Question for the lawyers: is it possible to convert a video e.g. via toolserver.org? Will this necessitate buying a license for Wikimedia or not? Will incorporating such a tool as a part of the regular upload process necessitate it?) WRT viewing, WMF should certainly exercise its "unique position to encourage a wider adoption of open video formats": start talks with Microsoft, Apple etc. etc. and force them to include support for viewing such formats. Set up a meeting of Jimbo with Tim Cook, organise mass protests in Redmond, WA, anything. In comparison to developing our own software, this certainly would be more productive (and possibly easier). We can do it! YLSS (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think a Wikipedia Mobile app for iOS that played Ogg/VP8/VP9 would do the job. Even more so if Apple forbids it for its codecs - David Gerard (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Once the content is uploaded, then it can be converted to a free format. This keeps patent-encumbered content away from Wikipedia, and makes ONLY the WMF a user of a patent-encumbered converter. It would avoid filling Wikipedia and commons itself with all forms of patented content. If that still is an issue, this scenario can be visited again. Victorgrigas (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Second choice, If there has to be a compromise, this is probably the best way to go. Put an mp4 converter on a separate server (wearing the proverbial clothes-peg) and keep it at arms-length from everything else, then store locally in free formats only. I also like the idea of a video-editing server as mentioned by Manuel Schneider. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This is acceptable as a second choice as it will help us to gain content, but it still leaves us with the problem of a large fraction of users being unable to view it. Mr.Z-man (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. It's the best way. And should not be limited to MP4, it should be possible to accept the import the most common formats and trancode them on the side of servers. --M0tty (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This seems the most pragmatic option, in my opinion. My background is probably relevant: I am a Wikipedia administrator (English) since 2003, an open source author (since <2000), and an expert (of sorts!) employed in the digital video area twice over the 2000/2001 and 2009/2010 periods. In the latter role I worked for most of the major device manufacturers including HTC, LG, Nokia, Samsung, and Sony Ericsson. In my professional understanding, the way the mobile device manufacturers work is that they just buy an SDK from chip suppliers when they are putting together their device design. They have no real control over CODEC implementation themselves, and often don't know the precise capabilities of their own devices in this area (re: bitrate before choppiness, etc.). IMHO it is in the internet and Wikipedia's mission's interest to put pressure on the chip suppliers to support accelerated processing of open CODECs. That should be longer term, concerted Wikimedia outreach type project for the tech staff, possibly in conjunction with Mozilla's FirefoxOS people who are now deploying devices to multiple markets. Accepting and transcoding content in non-free formats seems the most rational workaround while we're waiting for full support. This will encourage the soulless corporate members of the internet device and software ecosystem to err in the right direction. Pratyeka (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Freedom for uploader and freedom for watcher. --Palu (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. If web browser support is the problem, work with the browser vendors to improve support. In the meantime automatic conversion would not be a bad idea. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. It's fairly simple: Let the users upload everything, convert on the server if there is a problem with the format. There's nothing to loose. More formats will lead to more uploads. More uploads will create more pressure to support the free formats. --TMg 23:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I am comfortable with this compromise. Wikipedia first exposed me to OGG and I am grateful for that. -wbrenna36 23:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I support this only if transcoding can be done losslessly and without any cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Anonymous-232 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A sensible compromise, but ultimately doesn't address the issue with content being unavailable in many mobile devices. Second choice. Titoxd(?!?) 02:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This is a reasonable compromise as long as it does not incur any licensing costs for WMF. All videos will still be available in free and open formats while at the same time opening up the possibility for more contributors to upload video without having to transcode the videos themselves. --Hattmannen (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Best option. Support even if not lossless. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. WMF should not support the patenting of software ideas or companies that exist to exploit software patent portfolios. So, if WMF needs to make a deal with MPEG LA in order to transcode MP4 files, then I think they should choose not to do so. If WMF makes a business deal with MPEG LA, they will be lending credibility, legitimacy, and support to not only MPEG LA, but to patent trolls everywhere. Software-idea patents hurt many of us in the free software and free culture world (just look at the testimonies and statements at the USPTO round table events this past winter and spring and you can see clear evidence of this), and so on this issue, I think you should stand with the free software and free culture community and not support the patent troll industry. --Joshuagay (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Joshua, good to see you here. Thank you for the thoughtful statement. Do you know a goodlink to the USPTO events you mentioned? Also, could you clarify how this amounts to a vote for partial support (the section it's in),rather than an "oppose" vote (which is how it reads to me)? Is this along the lines of what @John V said above? -Pete F (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. All right. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. This is a good compromise - it would increase contributions while avoiding the issues of us using MP4 to distribute content. In the long run it would increase the use (and hopefully support) of patent-free video codecs as there would be more material around in those codecs that people would want to watch. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I think this strikes a good balance like John Vandenberg above insightfully stated "If this can be done without using donor money to pay for patent licenses, that would be good. If upload support means WMF needs to buy a license, then no!" If it cannot be done without buying a license, then no MP4 support, we should certainly not fund those MPEG LA racketeers. Palosirkka (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Per John Vandenberg --Tobias (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. WMF's Projects take proprietary knowledge and transcode it into freely usable knowledge. This is what we do. And we do it successfully --g (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Eventually the most pragmatic way. It lowers the hurdle to insert videos while keeping Wikipedia intact. Also other forms of adaption can be made. If this solution is not available or requires signing of any kind of NDA, I oppose implementation at all. Raffzahn (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. With the SOPA blackout we showed willingness to accept short term inconvenience to our users in order to support what we perceive to be their long term interests. Now, who the hell are we to decide their interests? Well, we're 'experts' in this field and must have the courage of our convictions to promote what we perceive as right - just as we hope that the experts in various other fields (medical, legal, mechanical engineering) are looking out for our interests in those fields. In this case, the user inconvenience (lack of support for unencumbered formats) is the fault of other organizations. We can choose to harm ourselves somewhat to make up for the failings of those other organizations, or we can choose to make a stand. I do support accepting uploads in various encumbered formats as long as it's not too harmful (i.e. costly / incovenient). Open4D (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. That's by far the best idea, I think. It solves the problem of missing contributions without the negative consequences of providing videos in a non-free format. ToBeFree (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. This, I feel, is the right balance between usability and open standards, with a mind to the future of the mobile web. Forpeterssake (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 2nd choice, if only so that we actually have some video by 2028 when the patent runs out. Smallbones (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. (Moved from above.) 1st choice. We should make our ingest tools as effective as possible; we should ingest anything that we can quickly convert to WebM. Supporting free, patent-unencumbered formats is important for the spread of free knowledge: so is accepting any and all educational files released under a free license. We should invest in both every year. This means we should support and invest in the development of the WebM toolchain, including players, editors, and transcoding tools. We have not done much to support transcoding tools to date. The initial implementation looks promising.
    I can see providing a series of options for users who can't play free formats: a link to install a player, a link to a third-party converter, or a link to other formats that we host. But we should not make it easy for readers to use WebM-incompatible browsers -- and this should certainly never be done transparently. I'd like to see better data on usage and browser limitations in order to identify popular combinations that literally cannot play WebM or Ogg. Then we can develop alternatives for them.
    Unfortunately, over half of the opposition to enabling MP4 uploads and transcoding are related to some misunderstanding about what that would entail: whether we could do this without compromising the free-license nature of everything we show to readers. Please make this simple for the community so that we can do away with the current creation bottleneck. --SJ+ 04:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC) + 03:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. We will be able to open these files after the patent term expires. And now this format is more convenient for uploading by contributors. — putnik 11:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. FFmpeg is a good solution to convert mp4 to webm and can be processed by wikimedia foundation. Dacoucou (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. First choice, if and only if no WMF money would be going to a software patent holder with implementation. WMF should not be supporting software patents, exactly the opposite. If WMF funds would be going toward MPEG-LA, or they can't say whether that would happen or not due to secrecy, consider this an oppose. Seraphimblade (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. What if WMV (windows media video) was the largest used video format? This was the case a few years ago and now it's not supported at all in the new devices (mobiles) to access Wikipedia. The most widely used format changes from year to year. If wikimedia chooses mp4 now, for sure the largest supported format will be different in 3 years (Google video format?). The storage format should be an open one with best quality and longest support. We should push its support on platforms. (Provide plugins or apps if possible if needed to read it) --Eon2004 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. With WP's current size and visibility, we have a great opportunity to promote free formats for all on the Internet by rejecting MP4. WP should not compromise with non-free codecs, and no material in such codecs should be part of the corpus. I'd vote no for these reasons (and several more), but nothing major prevents us from providing tools to help the user convert uploaded material to free formats, a little bit like using a proprietary software to produce or browse WP content: that doesn't affect the content, but eases the life of the contributor. --Witoki (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I don't think there is an ethical issue to let users upload mp4. It could be nice to put a link to firefox if the browser doesn't read WebM.
  43. actually against, but TMg had a better idea above ;) --Don-kun (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I strongly oppose MP4 as a viewing format, but I think this is the best solution. The end-user should not be penalized by vendors bad choices for their camera and other devices. The main storage of a media should be in the best quality possible under a truly open format --Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I "voted" no MP4 support. I would consider this option if it was developed and explained, but in this current RFC which gives too little info about the problems of MP4, the only safe option is to oppose the proposal. One question is what to do with the MP4 videos after conversion:
    • One part of me says they would have to be deleted after conversion, to avoid them becoming an argument for wider MP4 usage later.
    • Another part of me says it would be ok for them to be stored under the promise that they would not be used for anything other than conversion until the MP4 patents expire (that could be 2028).
    • Or maybe the only acceptable way for this to work is for the conversion to be an independent web service, with no organisational connection to WMF and no MP4 touching WMF's servers. That last solution has the disadvantage of being out of the control of WMF but has the added advantage that this service could be part of a new campaign to increase the amount of WebM video. Gronky (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Transcoding involves loss of quality. If the original video is MP4 it should also be archived as an MP4-file such that we can rely on that one if there are any problems with conversions, if we want to support a new format etc. (multiple reencoding is bad). It is also a matter of authenticity of the source. However, we should not support the MP4-lobby by providing the videos in MP4. --Chricho (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. It may be convenient to be able to upload content in restricted formats like MP4 (and then transcode them), as those are usually produced by the available hardware, but for viewing, I strongly support *only* free and open formats. We harm the open web if we endorse restricted formats. (Nicubunu (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  48. As long as the conversion was done as part of the upload and we weren't storing anything in MP4 WereSpielChequers (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. This would (1) allow increased numbers of video contributions, (2) increase the amount of freely-available and open-licensed video on the Internet, and (3) not compromise our commitment to hosting/serving information only in free formats. So it seems to me it's a win-win-win situation. Waldir talk 15:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I oppose MP4 as a viewing format; however, I support it as an upload format as long as it doesn't cost a lot for re-encoding and possible licensing. If this is not possible, I would oppose MP4 entirely. Providing video in MP4 will only prolong its dominance. Also, since VP9 is getting widespread hardward support, viewing it should not be as problematic in the future. --Article editor (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Fighting users is very difficult, and to make videos successful on Wikimedia, it has to be easy to upload them for users. Fighting with webbrowers to support open codecs, however, is "sorta easier", all the more so if video is successful on Wikimedia, thus the need for making it easy to users. I believe it's one of the potential strengths of wikimedia to be used to promote open standards. Samuelthibault (talk) 10:22 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  52.  Esperanto: Mi forte kontraŭas fermitajn dosierformojn kiel montro-formojn sed subtenas ilin kiel alŝut-formon. Tio estas kompromiso, kiun mi ne ŝatas sed povas vivi kn ĝi. Per Samuelthibault, Waldir, Remember the dot kaj aserto de Gronky "I'm against the sowing of oats or caring for the field, but I support having a great harvest next year". Nuntempe Vikimedio malfacile povas puŝi al evoluigistoj de foliumiloj por ebligi montron de 40.000 videoj. Se ni havos multe pliajn (mi esperas ke per ebligi alŝutadon de neliberaj formoj tio okazos) ni havos multe pli fortan situacion. Sekve, ni helpos al adopto de liberaj dosierformoj kaj ne plu bezonos solvadi tiajn problemojn. Se la kosto por Vikimedio estus konsirderita tro granda, mi subtenas neniun subtenon por neliberaj formoj. --KuboF (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    English: Strongly opposing to non-free formats to be viewing formats but supporting them to be upload formats. This is compromise which I don't like but can live with it. Per Samuelthibault, Waldir, Remember the dot and statement of Gronky "I'm against the sowing of oats or caring for the field, but I support having a great harvest next year". Now Wikiemdia with problems can push to browsers deveopers to add upport to view 40.000 videos. If we will have much more videos (I hope we do after supporting non-free formats to upload) our situation would be much stronger. So, we will help to adopt free formats as standards and we will have no more such problems like this one. If cost for Wikimedia will be considered too hight, I support no support to non-free formats.
  53. Support only for useful upload (I want to upload external freely licensed mp4 videos more easily). Strong oppose to all other mp4 uses because of "Why now?" argument. -- TarzanASG +1  21:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Do not try to make love with software patent holders!
    Pro: in my eyes our aim here is to get more content in free formats. There are many people having problems with client sided transcoding. I think we should help to liberate their files into a free format. Doing so we will get a consolidation in our fight for free software. However this includes the impossibility to keep the not free files here on commons. On the other hand these files represent the best technical quality we can get. So we should try to prevent this level of quality by using very high bits/pixel rates in the transcoding process or (better) using a lossless free format (vp9 will give us this opportunity). The resulting videos will be very large and will consume storage space (a little price for freedom). Please remember primary they are not build for viewing, but for producing the server-sided streams and/or further video processing on the best quality level. Another subject is the use of mp4 for streaming. First of all we should try to make our free formats usable on all important hardware. And I believe that an cooperation with videolan in this field would really be a nice idea. --Pristurus (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, allows easier uploads without supporting patent polluted standards Oxyman (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support even if not lossless. --Avenue (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

I am not sure which of the other options to pick.

  1. Not clear to me why we should jump on the aging mp4 ship while it's sinking: isn't WebM expanding? As outlined in the introduction, the two most important desktop browsers support it (if one uses Internet Explorer one can't expect internet to work; VisualEditor doesn't work either); encoding tools are nice but does anyone really need them now that you can just download in WebM from YouTube? --Nemo 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As user I like to upload and get the videos as simple as possible and independent of the client. MP4 always works fine, so I like it. On the other hand Commons is a well known website (for open licences models) with a wide range and should not support formats with licence problems. --Slick (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As technology grows, MP4 is quite a popular format and is used in many videos, I think implementing the MP4 video format is a great idea, however with the cost for using the MP4 technology will not be free and will cost some significant funds. --///EuroCarGT 22:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sorry I could not write in English. Videolarda vandalizme açık ve bunun kontrolü çok zor olacaktır. Özellikle İngilizce dilinde olmayan videoların kontrolünde sorunlar yaşanabilir. Fakat başka bir portal (örneğin; VikiVideo) gibi bir videolu eğitim portalı oluşturulabilir. (English google translate: Video vandalism in public and it will be very difficult to control. Especially in the control of the video is not in English language problems can occur. But another portal (eg vikivideo) can be created as a video training portal.) Thanks.--i.е. v-mail 02:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If your problem is the mobile/pad support, why can't your application specifically decode the open-source videos? If you had the codec in your mobile app, and that you invite mobile visitors to install it, you solve your problem.
  6. Only my suggestion, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for Wikimedia Commons. However, Symbol support vote.svg Support for local wiki files which can allow m:Non-free contents. As some mpeg format files are too hard to transfer to ogg format. (AFAIK I'm using 快播/Kuaibo/QVOD Player to transfer some, but my memory is only 4G RAM).--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think that Maybe we can support upload the MP4 source , convert it to save a free encoding file to (like MP4->ogg),and not save the source.So we can let the user upload the video from the device which use the MP4 format and satisfy our misson which is for free copyright.--Cwek (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


No MP4 support

I oppose any form of support for the MP4 file format.

  1. Okey so you get your nice shiny 5DIII film say a species of bird and upload it under CC-BY-SA to commons. What does the camera manual say about that:

    "This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video. No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard."

    Not very CC-BY-SA compatible is it?Geni (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So next time, buy a device that doesn't say that in the manual. HTH. — Scott talk 17:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck! I think that's the license all consumer products get. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Geni, I fail to see that problem. Parsing error? I parse this as "may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video" and/or "may be used for decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) .. (2) ...". So you can actually use it to encode your own videos as MPEG-4 and publish and license them however you like. Restrictions (1) and (2) apply for using your shiny camera's MPEG-4 support to decode movies from elsewhere. Lupo 20:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At best, it's ambiguous. It could easily mean that (1) and (2) apply to both encoding and decoding. Superm401 - Talk 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's ambiguous. First, reading it as "may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video ... that was encoded ..." simply doesn't make sense. If it already was encoded, you don't need to encode it anymore. Second, Kim posted below a link to a somewhat older license contract from 2005. In there, there's an equivalent formulation of that statement, but phrased slightly differently, making it clear that my reading of this is indeed what was intended. See article 7.1 in that license. Lupo 11:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth pointing out that there's nothing technically incompatible between CC-by-SA and a patent encumbered format, especially in situations (like this one) where it's guaranteed that the CC licensed material will also be available in a format that is not encumbered by patents. The combination poses oddities, not incompatibilities. This isn't a proposal to distribute video in mp4 and only mp4; it's a proposal to distribute video in mp4 as needed while also ensuring all video is still available in formats not encumbered by patents. The practical effect of this proposal would be to allow some people who currently cannot work with video on the Wikimedia Commons to do so while ensuring that all video on the Wikimedia Commons is every bit as reusable (under a cc-by-sa license) as it was to begin with. If we end up supporting mp4, there will be two significant effects: first, the number of people who can access video on Wikimedia projects will increase significantly, and secondly, the number of people who can contribute video to Wikimedia projects will increase significantly. And since we'll be multi-encoding all uploads, people will be 100% as free to reuse Wikimedia video as they have always been. MP4 support would allow for more viewers, more video creators, and more reuse. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some pretty long form responses to this below, first specifically on CC and secondly about commercial use and h264. Hope those help clarify the situation. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, but ideologically I am opposed to patent encumbered formats. Well there are some complications with video, its nothing like it used to be, and at the end of the day I don't think they are sufficient to compromise on this point. To quote Commons:File types - "Our mission requires content to be freely redistributable to all. Patent-encumbered formats fail to meet this standard.". One of the things I love about Wikimedia is how dearly we hold the RightToFork even though we hope that option would never have to be used in a "serious" fashion. Thus I would want some random person on the internet to be able to make an exact copy of our site (minus trademarks/logo), without having to ask anyone else for permission, including not having to get an mpeg-4 license [Even if they could use the converted video, its still not the "same" site]. Last of all, the words "Though the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public, as requested by their licensors..."[source] seems to be a scary slippery slope. Well I'm sure that the agreement has been evaluated carefully, there's something to be said about being able to look for oneself. Bawolff (talk)
    As an entirely other note, the concerns Geni raises above are rather scary on purely pragmatic instead of ideological grounds. IANAL, but it seems wrong (in a moral sense if nothing else) that a patent license related for a device could have any affect on the redistributivity of the content created with that device unless the user signed an actual contract when receiving the device when the patent in question has no bearing on the "creativity" of the content in question. I would love for the WMF lawyers to evaluate how enforceable such a claim is, and if it means what the claim appears to mean. Bawolff (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If MP4 submissions are converted to free formats, then a forked site would still have the same content even if it chose not to copy the MP4 files. How is that not the same site in any meaningful way? Unfortunately, so long as patents exist, it's not just MP4 that is a patent encumbered codec. There may very well be patents out there that cover the encoding and decoding of free video formats. Probably many of those patents should've never been allowed to issue, but that doesn't make them any less troublesome. These patents usually cover the specific process used to encode and decode of the video. They're content-neutral. --Avoini (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As Avoini above me mentions, since we would be triple encoding all videos, a project would be able to fork all of our content with no problem, they'd just have to drop one of our formats (that contains no content not contained in at least two extra formats.) There's no doubt that mp4 support would allow for more videos to be watched, created, and used; do you, Bawolff, sincerely believe that the fact that a fork would have to drop one (equivalent content wise) format is a bigger disadvantage than the advantage posed by Wikimedia projects having access to a far greater freely licensed video collection than we do today? Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, the right to fork isn't just about content, its also the ability to fork the infrastructure of the site (I recognize that this isn't the universally held definition of the right to fork). I believe that the Wikimedia websites should not be doing anything that a potential forker couldn't. I should note the conclusion I reached wasn't based on a single factor alone, but a weighing of the costs and benefits of various factors. In addition to the forking thing, I find the secrecy aspect goes against the spirit of our movement (Our movement is the volunteer editor community. We should not have to keep secrets from them), I find the way MPEG-LA presents itself to be generally scary (e.g. Geni's comment, other people's comments about how MPEG-LA communicates to the press), I worry this is a slippery slope (What if we find the percentage of our users who rely on mp4 goes up and up, and suddenly we feel we cannot walk away), I worry about the precedent this sets (what formats will we allow next), I worry about the PR aspects to those who are fighting for free formats ("Even Wikimedia went back on its position"). I also disagree that the format war is lost - there is orders of magnitude more support for free formats now (back in about 2005-ish, support was at 0%. Now its about 58% [5] (and the other 42% also includes some things that won't support video regardless of what we do. Also of that 42%, anyone with Java installed can play are videos which is probably a significant portion of those people) and things are looking positive for the future of VP9. On the other side of things, I'm not sure the benefits of MP4 will be quite what people think they will be. I cannot deny it will allow playing videos on iPhones/iPads (~10% of our viewers). In my mind iPhone/iPad support is the most persuasive argument for this proposal (Desktop browsers that don't support free formats often have Java on them (Often from the get-go without the user installing it him/her-self) which lets free formats be viewed, and even if they don't, people can change their browser quite easily). Many people seem to think that MP4 will open the flood gates for more video content. However I'm not sure if that's really true. I'm sure it will increase video contributions somewhat, but at the end of the day professional quality educational video is hard. Really hard. Converting to Ogv/webm isn't trivial but I've done it before, and its not impossible - I do not think lack of MP4 is the main limiting factor here for videos. Additionally our video intake rate currently is low enough that if anyone has a high quality video, odds are they would be able to ask someone for help, and someone would convert it for them. In conclusion I think the benefits aren't worth the costs, especially the ideological long term costs. Bawolff (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I oppose supporting the MP4 format for the following reasons:
    * Ideological grounds: the WMF has free software / content objectives. Any support for MP4 would bolster patent-encumbered forces (MPEG-LA can cite Wikipedia as an adopter of MP4), and weaken the open video format community.
    * Uncertain future: As detailed on the background page, "MPEG-LA’s contract reserves the right to raise fees in 2016". A small part of WMF's infrastructure will now be subject to the decisions of MPEG-LA. These type of relationships and dependencies should be avoided.
    I respect your right to oppose, but you should work with accurate information. That 2016 deadline is obsolete and MPEG-LA has said as of August 2010, they will not charge royalties for the life of the license [6]. Now, I still have questions as to what "that is free to end users" means because that sounds awfully like "NC" which is not really compatible with Wikipedia's free content stance. But we should debate those merits and not 2016. -- Fuzheado (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "That Is Free to End Users" (right in the headline) means this is a non-commercial license, which means it is not truly a free/open license. Superm401 - Talk 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuzheado, I'm not sure if MPEG-LA's declaration is entirely clear. Fabrice Florin's comments on this page indicate that this is a possibility:

    Regarding your second question, in the event that MPEG-LA were to start charging fees in 2016, the foundation would review proposed terms to determine whether or not another RFC is required

    If the information is obsolete, it should be amended in the the Background page.Gnosygnu (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In any event, I think the point about uncertain future still stands. The license agreements are secret ("the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public") while there is a fee for the AAC audio codec ("require only a small upfront fee for the AAC audio codec"). Both of these points make the future of adoption uncertain and unclear (specifically: there could be other unknown provisions in the license agreement / the license fee may change or be re-negotiated).Gnosygnu (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    * Slippery slope: It is a disconcerting precedent to adopt a proprietary file format because it is widespread. Similar claims can be made about files for Word, Mathematica, AutoCAD, Photoshop, etc.. If the WMF allows itself to be persuaded to host MP4 files "for the good of many users", how long will it be before they host .doc files for a similar good as well?
    Ultimately, do we really want our open content ecosystem dil/poll/uted by proprietary file formats? Gnosygnu (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you are welcome to your points, Gnosygnu. I would just like to mention that as far as the slippery slope goes, this is in no way meant to open up that door. Communities are free to adapt standards as they see fit within the scope and mission of Wikimedia and the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't expect this to open up other formats like .doc. A format request like MP4 is unique and has to do with Foundation resources to help support the mission of Commons. We will always respect that. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate it's not "meant to", but Gnosygnu speaks of effects, rather than intention - it very obviously does open the door, and is the very first thing opening that door. That door really, really, really needs not to be opened, and "meant to" is a derailment of discussion of the actual problem with the idea - David Gerard (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Keegan (WMF): I disagree, for reasons that are very similar to David Gerard. If the WMF decides to support the MP4 format, it would be making the first exception to host a patent-encumbered, usage-restricted file format. Simply put, the door to proprietary file formats would no longer be shut. There are no guarantees that the "uniqueness" of MP4 will not be argued again for some other file format in order to force that door open again.Gnosygnu (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also disagree with Keegan (WMF). "MP4 is unique" is a red herring. A value applies to the different "unique" situations under its pervue. This situation obviously falls under the value of using free software, so if it not applied here, it is a perfectly valid concern that it won't be applied elsewhere. Its like saying, 1, 2 and 3 are numbers, but 4 is a unique number. That is true, but it is a red herring.--Ian Kelling (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm opposing straightaway after reading Bawolff and Geni's arguments. Patents/trademarks/fees all pose a problem. Agreed, the existing format is not conducive for mobiles, but then hey, my phone doesn't let me play any video from the web, so it hardly matters. But, it's a no. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Supporting a proprietary format would run contrary to everything we stand for. Σ (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I remember the patent battles over the LZW-compression in GIF and Fraunhofer Institute MP3 well enough to vote NO! /ℇsquilo 07:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is against the ideals and goals of WMF in general; why make MP4 an exception? You also need to consider that technologies, and especially software, are continuously being developed and that more open source formats will pop up, leaving the community with more options to consider. Choosing for MP4 for the sake of attracting a "massive audience" is just not enough. I really think we should stick to our core principles and wait for another opportunity, which is probably in our near feature. -- Edinwiki (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No! Wikipedia is not free with patent encumbered formats. It is that simple. // Wellparp (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. I'd prefer we be able to ingest it. But this is the only other viable option - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wikimedia should supports only free format. --Accurimbono (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Our mission is to create free resources. MP4 and its owners are contrary to our mission. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. There is not real free knowledge without free formats. MP4 is not, so we should not support it. Kelson (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. It seems that, in a bit more than 10 years, contributors have totally forgotten the purpose and the spirit of Wikipedia and associated projets. We don't want to publish the best encyclopedia and related material: we want to do that with the huge constraint of freedom (licence and software). This includes the freedom of file format. Arnaudus (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. You can take away our ability to conveniently distribute multimedia-content as hassle free as possible to the end-user, but you can never take our freedom! (self-deprecating hyperbole is mandatory for freetard zealotery, yet ha ha, only serious). By conceding small non-free things like this, we're becoming harder and harder to fork. We're already too big to fail - and that's a bad thing. If we put patents in the way of our re-use, we're getting further away from being a free repository. I don't really mind accepting and then transcoding, but re-use is too important for Wiki?edia in general, and commons in specific to compromise on that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Content can't be free if it cannot be expressed in a free format. --MathsPoetry (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Geni, whose argument switches me from "partial support at upload" to "this mp4 thing smells like sulfur". Rama (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Apparently I'm late to the party, so I can only say that I wholeheartedly agree with Σ, John Vandenberg, Kelson and especially Arnaudus. odder (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Likewise. Gryllida (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No thanks. We don't need MP4. We already support good-enough video codecs/containers. Azafata (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Please keep Wikimedia free from software patents ManuD (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No way. Data formats that depend on patented software are not compatible with the definition of free according to http://freedomdefined.org. We must not support such data formats. --h-stt !? 12:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not compatible with Wikipedia values. Also an element of not broken, don't fix it. Kennedy (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Against. Patents are incompatible with free knowledge. Lionel Allorge (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Against. This would be an admission of weakness and assuredly not the way to push free formats forward. Zertrin (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No way. Very much contrary to our mission. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I support the spreading of free knowledge, but I do not support the spreading of patented materials, as far as Wikimedia projects are concerned. Elfix 13:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Against. Non-free videos don't mix well with free knowledge. Bohwaz (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. A few years ago, I would have decided differently but now that I know that converting is not that hard, that I know that a lot of trash would be uploaded to Commons (like it is currently done anyway without enough people caring for that), that free file formats work very well (encoding all my music files in Free Lossless Audio Codec now), that Chrome, Firefox and Opera are pretty well able to playback free formats and that hardware decoding support for VP8 is growing, I am strongly against supporting Apple and MS patented stuff and paying patent fees. -- Rillke(q?) 13:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. (Edit conflict × 2) No, no, just no. Contrary to everything in our mission. We should apply pressure on others to support free formats, not surrender to others' pressure to support patent-encumbered formats. It's already bad enough that Firefox is going to support it - we don't need Wikimedia to become yet another traitor to the movement (free software/free culture, broadly construed). Then the companies with an interest in MP4 can really declare their victory. darkweasel94 13:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose VP9 coming out settled the quality debate. It was over, so it makes no sense whatsoever to go backwards, potentially leaving a stagnant codec as the pseudo-default on this site. Mardeg (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Passionately against; what we have has been incredibly sufficient and I've never heard a single complaint or even request for such a thing. I echo again the "not broken, don't fix it". I'm against closed software and licenses like this. Let's stick to openness freedom -- where everyone works their best. --Bujiraso (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No, a clear no ! Julroy67 (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. No, against our mission, and against our attitude. matanya talk 14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. An unfree format is unacceptable. The argument of its popularity is disingenious, too, as the only sure result should Commons allow a highly popular format would be more cr@p being contributed, making the weeding of new uploads even more hellish than it is now (so far mostly restricted to jpg files), ever since MobileUploads was excreted — under the same pretence that it would make uploading of useful content much simpler. -- Tuválkin 15:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm a staunch supporter of the Free Software movement, and have been for some time now. From my view, this RFC doesn't fly in the face of the guiding principles - spreading knowledge would be served by this, in fact it's practically (but not actually) necessary in this day and age to support nonfree formats in order to get information out to the world, so I think our principles can reasonably be compromised in this case. However, I think the larger political situation surrounding the format wars and our considerable power to effect change in the ongoing effort to spread free formats tips the balance for me. We can reasonably push for easier ways to contribute, like better tools for conversion on home computers or better plugins for various browsers, but I don't think we can in good conscience support a format that's not free. I sure can't. --MarkTraceur (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)(this is in my capacity as a community member, not as WMF staff)[reply]
  36. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Bawolff, Geni and Gnosygnu and also because I'm skeptical that most mobile created videos will be good. A good video usually requires editing, and video editing on mobile devices is quite limited so far. Skalman (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose my second choice on the observation that there would be nothing stopping the WMF from providing a separate transcoding space/tool for contributors to both transcode and edit video in preparation for releasing to Commons. With a pinch of cleverness, an online facility could even remain mobile platform friendly and provide facilities for large video uploading that would probably remain problematic otherwise. In addition, we could learn from Wikisource and include a system of peer review before release, how cool would that be for upping the "goodness" quotient? -- (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a hard decision, but if we don't stand our own ground, how can we find our way out of this place? Maximilianklein (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. 1. How will the community be able to honor a secret license agreement? 2. Directly violates founding principle #5: because mp4 is not a free format. Readers of wikipedia would need to obtain a patent license to be able to access all of wikipedia. 3. We are giving treasure and conceding a political victory to our (right honorable) philosophical and political opponents. Are you sure this is a good idea? 4. That's a secret license agreement: How do you prove that the license does not contain any problematic clauses that violate founding principles? 5. This is like W3C proposing to support DRM "to further the open web". It doesn't quite make sense. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Update: a copy of a typical license: http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/h264-patent-license.pdf --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC) update2: The proposal is that we would have mp4 alongside a free format, so it would actually be possible to regenerate all of the data although one would have to accept a small amount of quality loss.[reply]
  40. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The desire to have videos now should not compromise the long-term vision of Wikipedia / Wikimedia. Furthermore, it's hard to reverse this decision in a few years when a better alternative becomes available. - Simeon87 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. No, just no. You can say that our primary mission is education, but freely licensed material is equally up there. MP4 simply has too many licensing issues, and I don't see that going away. If a method to help uploaders deal with OGG and WebM could be developed, that would be great, but simply dumping our long-standing avoidance of license-encumbered formats is not the answer. Huntster (t @ c) 17:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per David Gerard. — Racconish Tk 17:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The licensing issues are just too much. -- TOW  talk  17:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kim. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Simeon87. Seanpmonahan
  46. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Izzix. izzix
  47. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kim. ColdPie (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I oppose MP4 Video for a number of reasons: because of the secrecy surrounding the agreement; because the providing of content whose legal use is somehow restricted to our websites violates our principles in so many ways; because we haven't really made a decent effort to make conversion to open formats easier, as we could be much more helpful in terms of software and interfaces than we currently are, same for playback; because Commons is not Youtube, people contributing videos of value will have no problem converting them if they don't find it hard, and in my experience people are not contributing videos to Commons because they think it is irrelevant, since youtube dominates the scene and the Common interface for searching and playing videos is horrible, not because of format issues. --Solstag (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no reason to believe that the passing of knowledge will be prevented with open standards. There are many practical examples of licensing causing trouble. --Jcpilman (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The private license agreement is not acceptable, and violates a good number of wmf:Values. Legoktm (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No way - it's the thin edge of the wedge. If this goes ahead then the whole MP3 scenario is likely to kick off - I do see messages at OTRS complaining that we don't support popular formats - if we go with MP4, then everyone is going to ask - "well you have MP4 - why not MP3" - that will become much more difficult to justify.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How can anyone here accept "the full license agreements cannot be disclosed in public"? Seriously? --Krenair (talkcontribs) 19:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Is really the format the problem ? Is allowing a non-free format a solution ? I think the easiest et logicalest solution is having a online intregated convert software. Plus, if we allow MP4, why not all the others formats ? VIGNERON (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Of course no. No proprietary software. Béria L. Rodríguez msg 20:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. You could make the same arguments for MP3 audio, too. Do we allow MP3 audio uploads? Not that I know of. Do we serve MP3? No. So why MP4 video? No from me. Lupo 20:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a remark @Lupo: according to Wikipedia, it seems that we could allow MP3 from September 2015 when the last associated U.S. patent expires (and in most other countries, MP3 patents are already expired). So, in fall next year, MP3 audio will become a free format acceptable for Commons, if I'm not mistaken. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The various MP3-related patents expire on dates ranging from 2007 to 2017 in the U.S.
    [...] if only the known MP3 patents filed by December 1992 are considered, then MP3 decoding may be patent-free in the US by September 2015 62.16.142.106 21:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
    [reply]
    Well, the later patents are called "questionable" in Wikipedia, but even if we want to wait until these expire, too... 2017 isn't too far in the future :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not like the patents and I hardly see why we should force the users to be in compliance with them for accessing our content. I would prefer to see more development of the patent-unencumbered formats. And the secrecy for the agreement is not acceptable. ~ Seb35 [^_^] 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Non, s'il vous plaît, seulement des formats ouverts sur ce site libre de référence !--Flûte (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are strong pragmatic reasons to use the MP4 format, and no moral argument that can be mounted. The purpose of this institution is to freely spread ideas over the globe, "for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition", and as Jefferson noted, patents are in direct opposition to this. The pragmatic argument is strong, as the format in question is popular, but it does not consitute a vital nor existential crisis, which is the only possible grounds to violate foundational principles. And even vital peril must be heavily weighed against the compromise of integrity. I entirely oppose this measure. Tenebrous (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Patented formats would encumber reuse and make wiki content less valuable. -Erik
  60. First choice: no. Second choice: for contribution only. Third choice: for contribution and re-users, but as a clear second-class citizen, with no player seamlessly enabled by default, or with a significantly lower resolution. Even if it is implemented, users must still be warned about the problems non-free formats cause. Note also that supporting H.264 would encourage making it mandatory for WebRTC. --AVRS (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, assuming MP4 support would indeed increase the amount of uploaded video, see Túrelio's argument about checking uploads below. --AVRS (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A question for those who say Wikimedia is to promote free knowledge, not free formats, apparently implying that they would be OK with switching to MP4 and abandoning Ogg and WebM: would you support a format usable only with a proprietary (but free of charge) program which works only on Windows or only on Mac OS X? --AVRS (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I understand why the WMF has thought about it. However, as of now, I oppose supporting MP4 in Commons itself. By signing a secret license and paying a fee, we're saying that no other redistributor of our content can do what we do, using only free software; as Bawolff said, this is blow to the right to fork. This directly contradicts our stance of using (and enhancing!) FOSS and free/open standards (part of why I work here). The points raised by Geni are also important (people contributing MP4 under a free license may be in breach of licenses like that). We haven't made enough of a serious effort to use our technical and persuasion skills to support free and open codecs. This should include:
    • Automatically prompting people to install codecs (e.g. WebM for IE)
    • Investigating alternative playback and encoding mechanisms (e.g. JavaScript playback and embedding a WebM encoder in our mobile apps)
    • Supporting efforts to make performant encoding and decoding of WebM and other open formats mainstream. Google has already built hardware implementations of WebM. We should consider using the same kinds of advocacy and partnership used for Wikipedia Zero to get hardware and software manufacturers to build support in.
    • Find key areas where we can make technical contributions to the free format world (plugins, libraries, etc.) in a cost-effective way.
    If we go with MP4, that won't be the end of it. We will have actually funded people (AAC license pool) supporting patents for mathematics (which I don't believe should exist at all). They will then point to us and say things like Even open standards supporters like Wikimedia and Mozilla believe our standard is so excellent they had to adopt it. They will then introduce new properietary codecs, and use the same tactics to try to get us to adopt them (maybe for more money this time). There is also a possibility they will raise the fees. It's true we could then delete the files, but by sticking with free formats those concerns never apply.
    Finally, don't think this is hopeless. The open standards community has already won important battles:
    • This RFC itself acknowledges the successes for open video (e.g. Firefox and Chrome support what we need here; I believe Opera does too).
    • Speex is a very popular open standard for VoIP, Opus (its more flexible successor) is heading in that direction
    • PNG beat out GIF.
    • DRM is effectively dead for purchased music.
    The point is that it's a challenge, but we can win (speaking for myself, not on behalf of the WMF). Superm401 - Talk 22:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, opera does indeed support what we need (Opera 15 for android supports WebM. On the desktop, Opera 10.5 and later support what we need. Opera for some obscure OS's don't support video). Of course, opera only represents 1.12% of our viewers [7], so its a niche browser. There's a handy chart for browser support at w:HTML5 video#Browser_support. Bawolff (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as noted by ThurnerRupert, it looks like WebM hardware acceleration is coming in a big way (for VP9). Superm401 - Talk 04:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. We must not compromise on freedom. It's trivially easy to follow instructions to generate and view free formats. Don't give third parties the legal right to decide what free content we may redistribute. Ntsimp (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I oppose of supporting non free formats. Don't remove the incentives for device managers to support open formats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.224.248.247 (Discussione • contributi) 23:03, 16 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong oppose The entire purpose behind this site and movement is free and open access. If users' (proprietary) devices don't support open formats, the solution is to encourage them to use devices/software that support open formats. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose People must ask there excessively rich phone manufacturer to support free formats instead of adding cost, complexity and risks to the poor Wikipedia project. If there don't like free encyclopedia, don't use it and so don't complain that is use free formats only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.221.150.139 (Discussione • contributi) 23:25, 16 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  66. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The license agreement is secret, and patent encumbered formats have no place here. Aibara (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no reason to use a proprietary format. The goal of the wikimedia foundation is to make knowledge free. It would be strange to deliver free knowledge in a non-free format. --PAC2 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose: Secret licensing agreements and lending support to software patents are a definite no-no. R (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong oppose Wikipedia and Wikimedia are now big enough that we will *affect* the natural history of evolution of the formats, not just play along. Simply put, if Wikipedia is not an option on device xxx, users and manufacturers will see this as a deficiency and add support for the media / codec / etc. Staying with open formats, and open formats only, will encourage the adoption and legitimacy of these. This is entirely in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia in keeping knowledge open and available.
  70. Oppose: Avoiding high-fee encumbered formats is too important to lose to perceived convenience.
  71. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wouldn't say anything more than what Kim said --Kuwaity26 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I did not donate wot Wikipedia to further the goals of for-profit companies pushing a proprietary format. Beakermeep (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. Having spent a lot of time editing, I never felt an urge to donate money to Wikimedia, but I would not be opposed to doing so, and I do encourage non-editors to donate. I would not be able to maintain this position if Wikimedia started paying off the patent mafia. These people and companies are ideologically opposed to everything Wikimedia stands for today. They are full of ill will towards software users. And they will make sure that this deal, if it goes through, will enrich them as much as possible, even if means that Wikipedia users have to suffer. People who use the spy-phones will never contribute anything of volume, since they don't have keyboards. It sounds harsh, but they are dead weight. If they want to see videos here, all they need to do is to install free video decoders on their phones. Oh, they can't? They are locked in? Whose fault is this, anyway? If they are so clueless, and we give them MP4, guess what? They'll just find another way to lock themselves in, with patent-holders' help. Will Wikimedia buy more licenses then? Let's not make a deal with the devil just so that we can appease the ultimate consumers. Melikamp (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In order to encourage the use of free formats, it is necessary to discourage the use of non-free formats, and the easiest way to get that point across is to prohibit non-free formats entirely. 202.20.0.128 00:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free formats are at their strongest now and will only grow stronger.
  75. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While i would have thought such support would have made sense in 2009, in 2014 it does absolutely make no sense any more. that year brought two significant developments in spreading WebM: (1) Nokia lost its patent claim in Germany, and Nokia was the only one not signing the agreement with Google. And (2) Google worked on VP9, which is high quality. It is a matter of months, not years, when this will be widely available. This time most of the important hardware makers are on board --ThurnerRupert (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per the above comment, I believe VP9 will fix the current problems. --Mirek2 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The only way of forcing manufacturers to support free formats is to avoid using proprietary formats whenever possible and especially on wikipedia --Zmi007 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strong Oppose. The licence terms might be acceptable now (we don't know, as we aren't allowed to read it), but that is no guarantee that they will continue to be acceptable in the future. This proposal would effectively give the holders of bogus software patents the ability to demand a ransom fee from anyone wanting to view our formerly-free content. It would lend legitimacy to software patents at a time when the public are becoming increasingly aware of the failings in the modern patent system. This could be catastrophic not only for Wikimedia projects, but for the wider free content movement. Cynical (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This would be a terrible blow on both Wikimedia's content and the future of human access to culture and knowledge. WMF should not support the closed formats and patent owners. It also would be a big betrayal against those who financially supported WMF believing they were supporting free knowledge (and would continue to do so). --Zedaroca (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  80. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A free encyclopedia should be in a free format.--71.204.220.94 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose.  It's still early in the game if you think about how long the Wikimedia Foundation will be in existence.  It doesn't make much sense to undermine core values—and future extensibility—for a compromised "benefit" now. GChriss (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose H.264 can't even be viewed without permission from the patent holders, the patents don't expire until the 2020s, and we need to encourage patent free formats. Jrincayc (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Also, Cisco has yet to release their binary H.264 viewer. Jrincayc (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC) As well, as I see it, the main reason H.264 patent holders are not putting more pressure on users is that WebM and Ogg Theora are viable alternatives. In the absences of a viable WebM or Ogg possibility H.264 could very well start charging Wikimedia for things that are currently free. Plus, how long do the patents for AAC last? (Is there a list of AAC patents anywhere? Jrincayc (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why now? The recent arise of popular free and open formats has already demonstrated that it can happen even though 90% of the devices in the world supports only patent-encumbered formats. That we are changing course when it is consensus estimated 1-2 years away from getting the new VP9 format that is going into mobile devices doesn't make sense to me as a right timing. Ask me to vote again 5 years ago, I could have changed course, but for now, this is the least bad option. --At2000 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is very very simple: Free information unavoidably means no unfree tools or formats. None at all. Internet history has shown this time and again, and logical thinking supports it. Ignoring this truth will corrupt the freedom of the information Wikimedia wants to share. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 118.136.178.133 (talk)
  85. Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposeopen and non proprietary standards are the only way to go forward. So people have devices that don't support open formats. I am sorry for them for buying defective products, perhaps they should return them to the point of purchase for a refund as they do not do the job for which they were sold. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 120.146.240.151 (talk)
  86. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikimedia websites are the best places to find free videos, for me.Jshdcn (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Under this proposal, all videos would be stored in a free format and MP4 and they would still be freely licensed. This would only increase the number of free videos on Commons. Mr.Z-man (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to lack of a concomitant, proactive strategy to to make open formats become more prevalent. Without such, it is easy to interpret the proposal to diminish our commitment to open formats, whatever the intent, and thus to support the continued private taxation of communications tools, completely at odds with the vision. A proactive strategy, coordinated with other entities, to help make open formats win is warranted even if the proposal fails: simply refusing encumbered formats has been an insufficient strategy. I'd imagine a proactive strategy would involve product competition such as promoting VP8/VP9/Daala, and policy competition such as fighting software patents. Note I don't consider ~"get lots of videos, then we'll matter in the next codec battle" is the whole of such a proactive strategy, though it could well be part of one. Commons won't have a significant number of videos relative to the net at large due to various other constraints, no matter what codecs are used. Wikimedia's visibility, ability to coordinate with other entities, and eyeballs to Wikimedia sites, mostly Wikipedia, mostly non-video, are probably each potentially more instrumental than a much larger number of videos than we have now. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Simeon87 Rinick (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Give MP4 an inch and it'll take a yard. --Mikitei (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As people are discovering with another proprietary format like the DTS audio codec, just because you want to buy a license, doesn't mean the patent holder has to sell it to you. Allowing this will give the patent holders in MP4 veto power over who is allowed to view and upload video. Software patent encumbered formats have no place in open culture. Please do not make this mistake. Do not follow the lead of the W3C with DRM. Jeremy Allison, Samba Team.
  91. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Talk and Jeremy Allison. 1exec1 (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Second choice. Being able to ingest MP4 content and then make it available in non-MP4 format would be better, but if that's not possible then let's not use it at all. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia needs to keep to and promote open and free standards. Promoting closed and fee based standard will be not only costly to Wikipedia, but the internet community in general. Ploxhoi (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Seb35 --Zeitlupe (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kim Bruning --RussianNeuroMancer (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any benefits from supporting patent-encumbered codecs. If you want to upload a video to Commons, you should not use the raw output from your camera/phone anyway, but a properly edited version, and all free software video editors support transcoding to free codecs. And speaking of the lack of support for free codecs on mobile, this only affects people entrapped in walled gardens, so not supporting patent-encumbered codecs will give additional pressure to open them. Hweimer (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I must oppose any restriction to our advancement. This concept of restricting the use of ideas, popular in the USA because it means people can make a lot of money, is detrimental to our advancement in all fields. I agree with the idea that a machine can be patented for a limited time so that the development costs can be recovered (otherwise what would drive people to develop machines in the first place), but then its design should be made open (which is why we use the Latin verb) for development by everyone, and the market should decide on who is successful. This too applies to concepts and software. It is only greed that makes software algorithms patentable. BoringHusband (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  98. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kim Bruning Nimdil (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia cannot support or use patent encumbered formats. --Bürgerentscheid (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Of course no. No proprietary software.--Caryptes (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose against patented formats. --valepert (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that Wikimedia should only support free formats. --Manech (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Cedalyon (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A free encyclopedia should be in a free format. No compromise for having more hits or video. We have to maintain a compact policy of formats to enlarge the open licenses world. --AlessioMela (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia should be free by all means RealSebix (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikimedia should be free. --Phenrysics (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm against the use of proprietary formats for wikimedia content, it just doesn't make sense. --Einemnet (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am against this. If we want to keep the net free, we can't accept non-free formats. Free formats can be used by anybody, the non-frees cannot. 79.245.188.47 11:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Content on Wikimedia should be in open and free formats, else there is the danger that sometime in the future certain content might only be accessible to privileged groups/persons. Enemenemu (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am against this. Wikipedia should set a strong signal to support open source formats and reject proprietary ones. --ThorJH (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am against this too. We cannot refrain what could bring the use for problems.
  112. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am also against this. If we want to keep the net free, we can't accept non-free formats. Gromobir (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am against this too. --141.26.45.13 12:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI am against non-free formats. La tallinn (talk)
  115. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't cave in to non-free formats, yes to software and document freedom! Who if not WP is in the position to promote truly free knowledge. I would support (a) development or deployment of a MP4-to-Ogg Theora converter, through which potential contributors can submit their patent-encumbered vidoes to WP. Only the free format would be stored. Moreover, I would support (if really needed) a WP project to develop a mobile phone app/browser plugin to play Ogg Theora. -- Qcomp (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The Creative Commons licensing system was made popular because Wikimedia adopted and promoted it. I think this organization should continue to promote open standards. Adding support for MP4 would only continue support of a video format dynasty that needs to go away. clashers5 (talk) -- 12:40 PM, 17 Jan 2014 (UTC)
  117. Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI am strictly against non-free formats. t34 12:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  118. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not free and so on and so on. (and yes, wikipedia is THE right place for format wars) Elvis untot (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's important that we continue to take a stand for our beliefs. --Pixelpapst (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Convenience has never been an acceptable excuse for requesting people to hand over their freedoms. --AlphaGENERIC (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If I have the source-material if doesn’t matter in which format I convert it for upload. Supporting H264 would only make it easier to upload video that “Are free because I found it with Google”. --DaB. (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Gestumblindi, Rillke and DaB --Alupus (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, no thx. Alexpl (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Geni. Also because it is not in our best interest to adopt the restricted-format-of-the-month because of today's device support. Should we really roll over every time there's a novel file format? Wikimedia's lifespan is longer than those devices', and the traffic volume of Wikimedia projects gives us leverage for mainstreaming open, unencumbered formats. Ringbang (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Bawolff. Using patented file formats just sends the wrong message. Wikipedia's strong leverage should instead be used as a safeguard against non-free technologies. Ivan, 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Non-free therefore against it. --FSHL (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, Wikipedia is supposed to be a *free* encyclopedia, proprietary file formats would work against that cause. --Pc-world (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong oppose, not for ideological but for IMO more important pragmatical reasons, which have already been touched by colleague Rillke.
    Each day thousands of files are uploaded to Commons, which immediately need to be patroled/screened 1) for potential cyber-bullying images and other human-rights-violating images of living persons, and 2) for blatant copvios. This huge burden, as is well-known, rests completely on the shoulders of unpaid volunteers.
    With photos or still images, even the thumbnail-sized overview at Special:NewFiles allows experienced recent-uploads-patrolers a first assessment of potential problem content/uploads. This is not possible with video files and audio files, which require the patroler to view or hear the file in full-length.
    So, allowing uploads in the widely used MP4 format, would sharply increase the number of video uploads (most of which will be trash anyway and just spoil our resources) and ease the undetected upload of copyright- or human-rights-violating material. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Strong Oppose no use-case provided that MP4 is needed, everyone with a serious web browser can play OGG/WebM. Microsoft should add support to their defective brower. 78.35.224.41 14:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above, and especially per Gnosygnu, Edinwiki, Wellparp, John Vandenberg, Arnaudus, MathsPoetry, Azafata, ManuD, H-stt, Kennedy, Zertrin, Elfix, Bohwaz, Darkweasel94, Mardeg, Tuvalkin, Skalman, Maximilianklein, Kim Bruning, Simeon87, Huntster, Solstag, Jcpilman, Legoktm, Ronhjones, Krenair, VIGNERON, Seb35, Superm401, Ntsimp, Koavf, 213.221.150.139, Aibara, PAC2, R, Melikamp, Zmi007, Zedaroca, GChriss, At2000, 118.136.178.133, 120.146.240.151, Ploxhoi, Hweimer, Enemenemu, Clashers5, AlphaGENERIC, Ringbang and 78.35.224.41. If the users' devices do not support free standards, that's their problem, not ours. Every Internet user can potentially view OGG files, but s/he is restricted by the soft/hard/ware s/he uses. The Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to make free knowledge available to everyone, not to destroy walls the user has built just for the users' convenience at the cost of freedom. Wikipedia and Commons can make the difference. And BTW I don't know how good would be videos made by users who don't know how to convert them into free formats: actually, most of amateur clips are junk. --Ricordisamoa 15:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ricordisamoa, is it really necessary to mass-ping all people you agree with? I don't want to know how notifications would look like if everybody did that. darkweasel94 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Michael9422 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikimedia is a project based on free and open standards - supporting a closed video codec is incompatible with these ideals. --Deathflyer (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with most opposition arguments and fail to be persuaded by the supportive arguments. My own argument would be to say that the Wikipedia project is growing rapidly in influence and may be in a position to dictate its own terms about what is acceptable in file formats, rather than be perpetually positioned to follow what commercial entities pressure the community to do. I would like for Wikipedia to be able to present a free format and tell others to comply, and am not ready to give up hope that this can happen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per many an objection above and, in the main, because of the bit rot which accompanied the use of containers and codecs like .mov around mpeg or RealAudio/Video. Those containers and codecs made, and still make, a horror of many websites which chose to use them as they represented the most widely accepted or supported. The horror isn't a problem for me (ffmpeg/transcoder user), but it is precisely for those users today, who can no longer find support for those containers and codecs. The only way forward is open codecs and containers. The Windows users of today have alternatives for viewing which will support the open standards. And those will prevail in the long term. And that should be our goal. --User:Mwasheim
  135. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep Wikimedia free from patents. --Terber (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikimedia is a project from the community, it should endorse community-supplied content in community-friendly packaging.
  137. Strong Oppose Opening an exception its not a solution. It would be wrong to change wikimedia principles just to allow the support of one proprietary format(even worst when there are valid alternatives). In this situation Its way better to encourage the public to change, in a way similar to the SOPA/ACTA opposition page (but not in such way), by (eg.) making unsupported browsers to display an "advertisement" on video spaces, telling how bad it is and linking to a page explaining. I believe that the world loves much more wikipedia than those greedy patent applications, and hardware makers can as well implement support if there is enough people asking for it. Just think, do you want a better present or a better future? Thats the answer. --85.138.6.25 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Let the patent holders put in the effort for the conversions. Why should Wikimedia create value for them? Shorespirit (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep Wikimedia free from patents. --Tange (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The WikiMedia Foundation has a huge amount of political influence. By blatantly not supporting the patent-encumbered formats, a significant market share—everything on Wikipedia—appears in only free formats. Mobile providers will want to keep up with Wikipedia as much as they want to keep up with Google: they want you to be able to use it, because everyone uses Wikipedia. Therefor, by not supporting MP4 and by supporting Vorbis, Opus, WebM, and other open formats, WikiMedia is leaning heavily on Apple and Google to provide some means to view content in these formats. That pressure is significant. Since it won't make anyone remove h.264 and other format support from their software and devices using said software, it can only produce positive change—we don't need to approach the argument that removing support for viewing patent-encumbered formats may be harmful, because it's not a thing that this action will result in. --Bluefoxicy (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep Wikimedia free. Wikipedia is one of the biggest influences for a better web. Supporting mobile is a terribly weak argument. What archaic phones are we trying to support? Give them a reason to support free codecs. --Atarzwell (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia can greatly influence the acceptance of free formats. If Wikipedia allows MP4, then why not allow any other patent-locked "free" format? What will happen to the really free formats then? Wikipedia is the heart and soul of free content. Keep locked patents out please. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  143. More crappy content uploaded by mobile users, and time-consuming (to review if they're ok) videos to boot? No thanks. --Rosenzweig τ 17:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So this argument against meaningful video support is that it would be time consuming to review? -- Matt (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially I concur with Túrelio's arguments above. --Rosenzweig τ 17:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose However, the Commons can and should point people to conversion tools and off-Commons Wikimedia-hosted "one button" conversion tools. A "one button" off-Commons Wikimedia/Wikipedia-hosted tool that let you log into the Wikimedia/Wikipedia Global Login and upload an .mp4 file, convert it to a free format, and deposit it on the Commons under my login would be nice. Likewise, an off-Commons Wikimedia-hosted "one-button" playback-as-mp4 tool that took a Commons web page as input would be acceptable. Yes, converting the file each time would consume server resources and it would be a less pleasant experience for the end user, but the reality is that for free content at least, we should be strongly encouraging the use of free encoding systems. Davidwr (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose proprietary formats and licences, no thanks!--Biggerj1 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We can't accept non-free file formats in a free project; we must spread the verb of free formats instead. --Incola (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please don't use NON-FREE formats!!!! This is a free and open project which aim's be opened for everybody. Patented technologies are NOT FREE, NOT OPEN. That is the opposite of the Wikipoedia's purpose. In addition, Wikipedia should contribute to encourage and promote the freedom, specially the freedom in the software and internet world. This means promote and support free and opened formats, software, etc.. If you use a patented format you are promoting PRIVATIVE software. In one hand you guys have the freedom, in the other hand the dependence, the slavery: You choose, but you can't mix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshgloshe (Discussione • contributi) 2014-01-17T19:14:02 (UTC)
  148. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No non-free file formats.--Cirdan (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, many important concerns were already raised above. - Hoo man (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problem: mobile users cannot see Wikimedia videos. Obvious solution: users should install free and open source software which allows video playback. Proposed solution: pay the ransom money to the very gang that prevents the users from applying the obvious solution. This is a no go. The fact that we seem to be winning the codec war is just the icing on the cake. Melikamp (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Tom Dräscher (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose:I prefer free formats. --skarg (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And next year we will use .docx instead of HTML and .ai instead of SVG? --E7 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose [[User:pierre_gronau|pierre_gronau]] No patents please 22:18 17.January 2014 (UTC)
  155. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, specially in the wake of better open formats like VP9 and Daala. Neither manufacturers nor most consumers will see any interest in open formats if there are no use cases for them. Let Wikimedia be an exemplar one, in line with its mission of providing free, unrestricted content. The economical and technical resources required to support this non‐free format could be better used to provide users with instructions, tools and reasons for using free formats. --Mr.Unknown (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — seems like we're on the cusp of this not being much of an issue anymore, and also what Superm401 said. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - none free format until patents expires in 2028.--Wdwd (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep Wikimedia free. --Trustable (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No non-free file formats. --Prog (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We should use free and open formats & codecs only. --WikiMichi (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mi opinias, ke estus tre malsaĝa decido, se ni nun perfidus niajn bazajn principojn por eta kaj tre momenta avantaĝo: la evoluo estas tre rapida kaj ankaŭ MP4 post malmultaj monatoj estos antikvaĵo kaj estas certe nur demando de tempo, ke libera videoprogramo eĉ pli bona ol MP4 disponeblos.DidiWeidmann (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that it is a bad idea to support propritary formats. If nobody starts to support the free stuff then we will never become a free society --Txt.file (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the spirit of Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia from the first moment. --AlbertoDV (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This site is dedicated to free media and free formats that are not encumbered by patents are an essential requirement. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lex iPhone. -- Smial (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose because it would be a wrong signal to all that stick to unfree formats. --Pustekuchen2014 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We must stand on the strength of our convictions. Haxwell (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Support of proprietary format is a very bad idea, no one can be sure that the condition of the license of use will not be changed (to ask for greater license fee or to apply greater restriction on their use)--Moroboshi (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Rippitippi (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Goldkatze (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please do not support patented formats. Reasons:
    1. A lot of the people who have written and promoted Wikipedia over the years did so with the belief that Wikipedia is part of a general push for a free/open internet, which includes taking a stand against patented file formats. Supporting patented formats would be a betrayal of those people.
    2. The only reason anyone accepts this problem is because they think there's critical mass behind those formats. Don't contribute to that perception!
    3. If we support MP4 now, application developers are less likely to add support for free codecs since they're not necessary to view Wikipedia's videos. This means that when future codecs replace MP4 and Ogg, users and developers will expect Wikipedia to support MP4's replacement, but we won't be offered the same licence terms. We'd be setting ourselves up for a bait-and-switch.
    4. Wikipedia must use its strong position to actively help the "open web". If Wikipedia won't, what big web site will? --Gronky (en.w.o: en:Gronky) 09:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No non-free file formats. --Krib (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No patented file formats. Bad idea.--Arnaugir (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikimedia shouldn't spend its resources on supporting something that would hinder its development. MP4 could be a threat, because enterprises aren't about liberty and freedom of knowledge, but rather about profit and free advertisement. WebM has wide support and it's something we, the users, know that will never turn us down. --David de Dios (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No non-free file formats. Andim (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia has far more to lose by compromising it's values than it does to gain. People once said things like "99% of encyclopedic content is copyright by company X, Wikipedia should partner with them!" But we can see in hindsight what a bad mistake that would have been. Sticking to its values has always been the best decision for Wikipedia, and this same old argument of compromising its values for further adoption is no more persuasive than it has ever been.--Ian Kelling (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't believe this is even up for discussion. Indietrash (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Me neither! Keep free content in free formats! SilkeM (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No non free file format, no secret license stuff. Pleclown (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No proprietary file formats in Commons/Wikipedia, please. -- Borb (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing not open on Wikimedia, that’s it. --Jailbird (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no need to rush or compromise here. The primary content of Wikimedia projects is plain text. But some work could be done to help readers/viewers and contributors out with software that can handle the free formats (very basic things like instructions on how to play back video clips on Mac computers, and so on). /NH (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Wikimedia is about free content. That means we find a way to do it with free content, not that we just throw up our hands and give up. Ingestion and conversion would be alright if and only if no WMF money would go toward MPEG-LA for doing so, but Wikimedia should never be supporting a software patent, implicitly or otherwise. Seraphimblade (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep it free as in freedom Blaimi (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As long as this format is so filled with patent issues and the like, it shouldn't be used for a project that aims to follow the ideaof being open source. --Meuhcoin (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose MP4 is not open file format, so WikiCommons does not support this format. If WikiCommons support this format, it would be a betrayal of the movement of the free content. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would be very sad in long future. --Dsant (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose do something else with our money. Shannen doh (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Proprietary formats have no place in a free repository of knowledge. The tools required to create and edit free video formats are freely available with none of the license restrictions associated with H264 or MP4. --DublinBen (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not free.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Conny (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  192. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a very slippery slope when we start using non free-software. When we start using one, whats to stop us from moving to all proprietary software. Wikipedia/Wikimedia should be all free.
  193. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Principles should be more important than practical concerns, especially when the alternatives are perfectly capable! I'm particularly uninterested in problems with iPad support. Wikimedia is simply a poor fit for those users. —WOFall (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please keep Wikimedia free from software patents. - Laurent, Yverdon-les-Bains, Suisse, 00:14, 19 January 2014
  195. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a leader of FREE knowledge, it should support FREE software. No MP4 on Wikipedia please. --Arkar1984 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Daiz would laugh seeing we are this stupid jumping for .264 MP4 are we trying to become MKV then jump into .265 next time? are we forgetting something here? yeah, right we are forgetting about the user that can't watch .264. Aldnonymous (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not support the use of the MPEG family of codecs for many the reasons mentioned above, such as it being a non-free codec, which directly conflicts with the purpose of Wikipedia as a whole. It is not Wikipedia's fault that some browsers such as IE and Safari do not support open formats, who instead opt to only support closed formats. If Wikipedia allowed h.264 video it would give less incentive for camera manufacturers and browsers to support the open formats, thus going directly against Wikipedia's ideology, especially considering that h.264 is a lot more popular with the camera manufacturers. Nammi-namm (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia is not free if any of its content is non-free. By accepting proprietary formats, Wikipedia would cede to the patent holders a measure of unchecked control. --Jordon Kalilich (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I still remember the mess when patent holders suddenly announced Gif#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement. We really do NOT want to get dragged into that sort of legal and policy mess any time the patent holders feel like announcing a new position. Alsee (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC) (Self edit:) I'm upgrading to STRONG opposition. I find it particularly problematic that this proposal requires the Foundation to be bound by secret contract terms the community is forbidden to see. Hell no! Alsee (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Horsefreund (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia is by definition free as in freedom and is not responsible of the lack of support of open formats in IE. Ordiman85 (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The (coming) WebM with VP9 and Opus will be good enough at the moment. Actually they promised to stick to VP8 and Vorbis, but I accept the change as meep happens. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia should be as free as possible.--Tchoř (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Two points: first and most important, WMF should not weaken their mission to open and free content just to support widely used but closed formats. Second point is that by enforcing the use of free formats WMF could make people think about those issues. Nowadays it is quite common to use and share almost everything that could be found on the Internet without thinking about licenses and other people/companies rights on that material. I really see a review problem by simply allowing enabling everyone to upload MP4 material. Mike de (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC). Updated: Mike de (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seewolf (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep Wikipedia free. Aldebaran (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Keep Wikimedia free! --Phyrexian ɸ 20:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not at ease with proprietary formats and not sure that we should compromise on 1 of the 4 "free" pillars. Erdrokan (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stay with open formats. Spend time (and if necessary money) educating users and making it easier for them to use open standards. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Education and supporting open-source projects (hardware and software) are the two keys to solving this dilemma. Asaifm (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No because I'm an extremist and I think there are others more important things to do, like improve the mobil version of wikipedia. It is just bad to read this Km of page. User: YK
  212. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We are the world's sixth most popular website, we can make the rules. Let's encourage device makers to support free formats. User: circumspice Circumspice (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would rather that the Wikimedia movement stuck with completely open formats. We are in a position to take a stand on this issue, and I think we should do exactly that. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Simply no. It is not a free format. Clearly no. TraxPlayer (have a chat) 01:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per w:Graphics Interchange Format#Unisys and LZW patent enforcement. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not worth compramising transparency and freedom. Wikipedia doesn't even need videos, anyway. -Haikon 01:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thwart Google at every turn. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  218. If we can't beat them... wait, we can still beat them. ...Aurora... (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia is one of the few communities that has enough power to stand by its principles, let's not change that. Saftaplan (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why give in to lazy software corporations hesitant in including open formats when it requires us to give up our values on creating content not subject to restrictions on creation, use, and reuse? Eventually, they will support open formats. Just wait. RBKreckel (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that there is no an imperious need to do so and it is important to support free and open formats that will shape the future of our technology. There are more reasons, but that should be enough for everyone. vernius (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is just no need to weaken our position. And, as Gestumbindli points out, I'm not sure that this step would improve the quality of our media material. --Zinnmann (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Keep Wikimedia free. But provide to community ads (images) for adding to all blogs, sites ... of contributors. We can change the usage of contributors. --Ccompagnon 09:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We should urge manufacturers to implement free video codecs in their devices. --YannGoudard (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to patent issues. Esby (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The liberté and the Libre is a very important thing when world goes wrong we need it. Please never support. HumanG33k
  227. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose don't open the door to patent trolls :S. Sucoplus (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The mission of Wikipedia is not only learning: in many aspect, it's to spread knowledge through time. Many users of Wikipedia (contributors and simple readers) expect Wikipedia to still be here in several decades. Such thing is impossible to guarantee if using non-open solutions: their is not any certainty about the future of these solutions and no body can provide one. Even the editor can guarantee that its format will remain free in the future at any cost, what ever can happen. Wikipedia should be fully independent, because knowledge should. Choosing or not MP4 format it's not about the mission of Wikipedia of being the ambassador of open formats: it's first of all to guarantee that the project will continue in the future, what ever happens to the rest of the world Chrysander (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC+1)
  229. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Grünich (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I understand the intended purpose of this, but it is just wrong given the greater purpose of Wikipedia, which is to be free, with no proprietary format whatsoever. Cimoi (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  231. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Putting free information into non-free envelope makes the whole "message" non-free. Device/software manufacturers who purposely chosen not to support open/free information media formats excluded their clients intentionally from free-information world. Wikipedia is not here to comply with this business decision that is meant primarily for information-flow control. Nor it is here to make life easier for clients who voluntarily got in this information-control scheme by buying those commercial products. --Jan Filein (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cost is too high: Free Software must be used to spread knowledge. --Ydroneaud (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not wish to donate money to the Wikimedia Fundation and see a chunk of it going to patent trolls. Some browsers try hard to break FLOSS (and even include DRM), do not give into EEE again. --Renard 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  234. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No MP4 should be supported on Wikipedia. --Ottomano 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  235. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please keep Wikimedia free from software patents. --Legrosschmoll
  236. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please keep Wikimedia free from software patents. I cannot express it better. Trackler (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I already have problems with Wikipedia's allowing of fair use images. Fair use adds major, in my opinion unnecessary, burdens to the people that re-use our content. Adding into the mix non-free file formats will make the situation for re-users of our content that much more burdensome. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Faidon Liambotis (WMF) (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Let's stay with the free-as-in-speech approach. No support for patent-encumbered formats (and no being fooled by free-as-in-beer patent licences). --SpecMade (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We must stay FREE. עידן ד (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please keep Wikimedia free from software patents. --Kcchouette (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Supporting non-free formats on Wikipedia would be a mistake and is not necessary.
    1. For uploading videos, Wikimedia could simply edit and distribute a video-converter tool based on already existing free software and available on most platforms.
    2. For reading videos, users not able to read free software videos shall be informed that they are restricted by their current software. Then in a second time given advice on how to access fully Wikipedia media :
      1. by installing free software browser like Firefox (available on almost all platforms except Apple iOS), or
      2. by installing the Wikipedia application on mobile phones (available on Apple iOS).
    3. Indeed, Wikimedia shall instead promote and support the freeing of the VP9 video codec and it becoming the next video standard for hardware materials currently supporting MP4. This position will be much stronger if all free-aware foundations (like Wikimedia, Mozilla, etc.) were joining together and making a common call to mobile devices and components manufacturers to support free video formats, and in particular the upcoming VP9.
    4. Let's not forget that no royalties are charged on AVC video format currently, and only because Google by freeing the VP8 codec represented a too great danger to paying video formats. If you support MP4 and enforce its domination, not only will you support non-free software today, but also you will deserve the current fight that should be the priority for the next standard video format to be free. Refuse MP4 and announce you will support VP9 once it will be free instead, and get others to follow you.
    5. "Killing" Adobe Flash seemed impossible a few years back, but Steve Jobs decided to get rid of this rubbish and he will eventually manage to just because he was firm on not supporting it on iOS. How could Wikimedia pretend to respect the free software spirit and not being able to be as firm than that on such a red line ?
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marouq (talk • contribs)
  243. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Non-free formats should not be supported by Wikipedia as this would be contraproductive and would decrease the chance to have free formats that can be used across all platforms somewhen (hopefully very soon) in the future. Releasing and advertising an *super* easy-to-use video converter that converts non-free formats into free formats (maybe integrated into something like a "Wikipedia Media Uploader") should be the perfered choise and would correspond more with the idea and the philosophy behind Wikipedia. -- Shellexecute run (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose WMF should not be Troja, stop the Trojan horse of MPEG-LA - I regularly donate to Wikimedia Germany. I'm against using my donations to pay for patent fees for patent-encumbered encoding and decoding software like that which is necessary to support MP4 video formats at the servers of WMF, even if it will be only a tiny share. Because I think, software patents hinders the evolutionary development of good software, good standards and the free distribution of knowledge. --ArchibaldWagner (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose I haven't been contributing for the last 10 years to give it all up now. Free means free in all aspects; if we can get open-source hardware I would go with it. Yet some people think it is wise to waste money resources and implant, license and ideology, time bombs. I really believe that if MP4 is approved then the current board should be all removed. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Wikimedia Commons should only host files in free formats. MP4 is not. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Symbol oppose vote.svg pile on oppose as per too numerous to mention. russavia (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Open file formats are good enough. There is no need to negotiate license fees for proprietary formats. - Abrev (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - We need to define what we want to be in the future. Because if we are just indiscriminate distributors of educational content aimed at reaching more people but forgetting the values ​​of free culture which is the main tool to unmonopolize cultural distribution. So, "in practice", what's the difference between us and Google? Or even better. What we teach to our community by allowing mp4 nonfree software (which, not by accident, managed to maintain its monopoly on the most popular devices) on our sites? That this practice is okay and we want to be part of it? - Raylton P. Sousa (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose — in Support of the Commons and Inclusiveness The front page of the Wikimedia Foundation says:

    The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge.

    The word free links to the Free Culture definition which states "A free cultural work is one which has no significant legal restriction on people's freedom." Right from the start, Wikimedia supported open formats exclusively. Until now.
    Certainly YouTube hosts more video than WMF, but in contrast to Wikipedia's zealous content curation, YouTube has never assumed the task of curating the video it hosts. Video curation is far more resource intensive than image or text curation. Pragmatism seems to be the justification for this proposed policy change which would rock the very foundations of the WMF. But where does pragmatism end? Wikimedia policy currently requires uploaded content to be available under fair use or licensed to share. Without such a policy more written and image contributions would surely have been made to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, yet no one has suggested doing away with this free culture commitment. At least not yet. If this change is made, WMF undertakes to host all non free video in free formats... how long before pragmatism dispenses with this expensive requirement?
    While FLOSS formats are open to anyone, closed digital formats like Mp4 actively enforce exclusivity with DRM. The tipping point for me was the realization copyright lobbyists are pushing through laws supporting DRM around the world, sometimes under the guise of secret trade agreements like ACTA and TPP. In Canada today a direct result of the copyright lobby it is illegal to circumvent DRM. The very existance of DRM poses significant legal restriction on people's freedom. Our new Copyright Law made it illegal for Canadians to circumvent any DRM on media or devices we legally own for any reason, even when DRM prevents us from accessing content we are otherwise be legally entitled to access —
    • works we have paid for, or
    • works we ourselves have created, or
    • works that have been licensed to share, or
    • works we should be able to legally access through fair use or fair dealing exemptions to copyright law, or
    • works that are in the public domain.
    At the beginning of this discussion, it is clear the original license agreement MPEG LA offered Wikimedia required license fees. But MPEG LA removed that objection by waiving even nominal fees. Why? MPEG LA tells us:

    Our goal is to provide a service that brings all parties together so that technical innovations can be made widely available at a reasonable price. Utilizing our collaborative approach, we help make markets for intellectual property that maximize profits for intellectual property owners and make utilization of intellectual property affordable for manufacturers, consumers and other users.

    Clearly MPEG LA exists to profit from patents and permission culture. I can imagine only a single reason why MPEG LA would extend this "generous offer" — which is the same reason I strongly oppose its acceptance — it is a trojan horse.
    If WMF supports the locked down Mp4 video format it will make it harder for free software (and free culture) to survive. Laurelrusswurm (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  251. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons is only for open file formats. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free flow needs free/libre creation of digital environments including the representation of the video, and Wikipedia projects have shown this. Our DNA is based on the principles of freedom to modify, improve and adapt tools to the needs of our communities, and that is not possible with proprietary codecs and containers. --Nvjacobo (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apart from ideology (much has been said about that already and I mostly agree to those who fly the FLOSS flag), I'm actually pretty pleased with the fact that Theora and WebM act as a barrier that forces people to put some effort into it instead of simply hitting the upload button. Imagine, what would happen if we allowed mp3 for audio files: we'd be completely swamped. We already are barely able to detect all the copyright violations among the picture uploads and I've got the feeling that enabling mobile uploads made things worse. For pictures we have at least tools like Tineye or Google's image search available … --El Grafo (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How to get and protect free and open file formats if even Wikipedia would switch to industry owned file formats? Travus (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free knowledge requires completly free formats. Fale (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Gvf (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reasons are clear above --Ranjithsiji (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm opposed to MP4 support in Wikimedia projects. 1) I expect Wikimedia to be a Free-As-In-Freedom champion. That means eschewing proprietary data formats. 2) I have no trouble accessing FAIF video formats. Everyone is free to make their own software and hardware choices; it is easy to choose SW and HW that will play Free video formats. 3) It is true that there exists more MP4 video content than FAIF video content. Once the MP4 camel has its nose in the door, the small amount of FAIF content won't be worth the effort to maintain. As soon as the Wikimedia Foundation needs to cut costs, the low-use FAIF content will be the first to go. Then everyone will be forced to purchase non-FAIF software to participate. 4) Does Wikimedia have the capacity to store video in both MP4 and FAIF formats? Won't that be expensive? Bob Jonkman (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Regardless of the convenience of using proprietary file formats, Wikipedia needs to hold to its values of being a free and open encyclopedia, and stick with our policy of only using free and open formats. Wikipedia is one of the most powerful examples of the benefits of free and open collaboration on the Internet. We should continue to send that message: we are successful because we are completely free and open in everything we do, from the free/open Mediawiki software, to the free/open collaboration on articles, to free/open file formats. Developers will soon come around and start supporting free formats, especially if highly-trafficked sites like Wikipedia continue to demand that they be supported. Instead of giving in, we should force users to tell their browser developers "Why the hell can't I play videos on Wikipedia? Make your shitty browser work!" ... Soon, they will give in and support the open formats, because Wikipedia is far too popular for them not to. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several reasons: First, WikiMedia should not risk receiving any patent claims or summoning patent claims to readers and (more important) authors. Second, Wikimedia should advocate for Free codecs and Free software. It is easy enough to install media players & browsers that work better than "standard" (WMP & IE) ones. --Lumag Lumag (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  261. slight Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; direct benefits should be weighed against long-term risks and indirect drawbacks - which are considerable. No guarantee exists that patent owners won't start charging a lot more some time in the future (maybe the current owner can promise, but it's common for intellectual property to change owners). Not to mention the principle - reuse and modification would cease to be really free. — Yerpo Eh? 10:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  262. I think the upload feature should be able to convert any format (including MP4) into open codecs, for the reasons I argued above. In case that isn't deemed viable, this is the only other option I'd support. --Waldir talk 15:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mainly per @Fae and @Solstag. If donor funds (in the form of fees or WMF staff time) are to be applied to fixing video-related problems -- something I strongly support -- there are many better, and more mission-compatible, ways to go about it. -Pete F (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Now is not the time to give up on free video formats. Now is the time to persevere and use WikiMedia's size and scope to encourage hardware manufacturers' support for WebM and Theora Grunzh 15:18, 23 January 2014 (US CST).
  265. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose because there are other alternatives and I don't think it will last long. IMHO, we must to change (usability should be the target), but this is not the right way. --Umberto NURS (msg) 23:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jrtayloriv. Okki (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose The Wikimedia Foundation signing any contract that users and donors are not allowed to read would be very bad. Supporting proprietary formats by providing content in them when libre alternatives exist and adding a dependency on proprietary software would be bad. --Covracer (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose La wikipedia sinteno pri .doc estu ankaŭ pri mp4
  269. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per h-stt --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose How bad would it be if the Wikimedia Foundation were to start agreeing to contracts it is not authorized to disclose to Wikimedians? Why bother giving time to Wikipedia if we do not have our say anymore on it (and how could one have his say on something he cannot know?)? How can we even contemplate to sacrifice something so vital and inherent to Wikipedia, to some short-term necessity that will vanish on its own as VP9 make its way into all devices?--Julien Demade (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Using proprietary formats is not an incentive for producers to do the same GianoM (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We must keep Wikipedia free--Dr Zimbu (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong opposeWilliam Moreno I am Fedora Linux user. I have OGG full support in my OS, MP4 has not full support in Fedora and many others Linux based OS, propietary formats need aditional codecs availables third parties repos, I vote to keep free knowledge in Open Fortmats in Wikipedia
  274. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Allowing encumbered formats within Wikimedia is simply unacceptable. No caveats (i.e., partial MP4 support) can excuse allowing MP4 on Commons. --Cgtdk 18:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wikipedia is about "free" content, everything is already said --Neozoon (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose per everyone above Elfalem (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Michael F. Schönitzer 14:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[