[Liverpool] New FSFE Free PDF Readers Campaign

[Bob Ham]

On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:55 +0100, Sebastian wrote:
> 
> On 09/16/2010 09:45 PM, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 21:38 +0100, Sebastian wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not quite following the
> >> financial sense here.
> >
> > The issue isn't financial, it's ethical.
> 
> I was responding directly to the paragraph:
> 
> "While people are free to license their own software in any
> way they choose, government hold *our* money, and must
> use it responsibly"
> 
> If we are talking about money, surely it's a financial issue as well?

There is an issue of whether the government itself acquires proprietary
software or free software.  There is also an issue of whether the
government recommends proprietary software or free software to the
public.

There are already active, successful campaigns regarding the issue of
what kind of licenses the government itself acquires.  The government
has made recommendations to ministries that free software be acquired.

The present concern is the kind of licenses that the government
recommends members of the public acquire.  The government is funded by
our money so any action they take, such as making a recommendation,
should be done responsibly and in the best interests of the general
population.

I can't speak for Richard but reading his paragraph, I saw the money
that was referred to being simply the general idea of the government's
funding, not specific money spent on software licenses.

The government feels it must recommend a PDF reader.  It has to spend
money to make that recommendation, for example on salaries for civil
servants.  There is (arguably) no cost difference between
recommendations for different kinds of software license.  Hence, the
issue isn't financial, it's ethical.

-- 
Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh>

for (;;) { ++pancakes; }
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20100916/2c121062/attachment.pgp>