[Liverpool] New FSFE Free PDF Readers Campaign

[Sebastian]

On 09/17/2010 09:43 AM, Bob Ham wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 23:11 +0100, Sebastian wrote:
>>> >  >  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.
>> >
>> >  *Only*  free software? Or free software*as well*? Also, free software,
>> >  or specifically open source? Both of these aspects are of great
>> >  importance in determining the suitability and relevance of this campaign.
> I beg your pardon, it was open source.

Here I was actually asking a question.

And I believe it was: as well
> but with a preference for.

>
>
>> >  And there within lies one of the significant problems of this campaign.
>> >  The fact that people apply principles blindly, instead of analysing the
>> >  situation on a case by case basis and being realistic about what they
>> >  propose.
> What is being proposed is that people apply a principle through
> analysing the situation on a case by case basis and being realistic
> about how it can be applied.
>
> The FSFE is recommending that the government adopt a particular policy.
> Government policies aren't implemented blindly.

The "blindly" part referred to the recommendation made by the FSFE in 
this particular case. In the sense that, unlike other cases, such as 
office productivity software, in this case, their suggested solution 
would have minimal to no benefits. And even potentially incur increased 
costs to the government. It is recommended purely out of principle, 
without looking at the situation in a balanced way, from all angles. 
That's what I meant by "blindly".

>
>
>> >  This particular campaign:
>> >
>> >  1. It's not for all our good.
> I'm not sure what you mean here; the campaign is plainly intended to be
> for all our good.

In a very fuzzy, idealogical kind of way. However, not in an immediate, 
tangible way - it wouldn't bring any actual benefits (again, I am 
talking strictly about this campaign/proposal - not all open source 
initiatives)

>
>> >  2. It wouldn't really improve our lives in anyway.
> The use of free software over proprietary software is an improvement in
> the freedom of the user.  I think most people would consider increased
> freedom to be an improvement in their life.

Again - you are referring to the whole of open source - I am strictly 
talking about the proposed removal of Adobe Reader - and replacement 
with alternatives.

>
>> >  3. It wouldn't promote open standards (the pdf format is already open).
> One could argue that promoting one particular open standard is
> implicitly promoting open standards in general.  Regardless, I don't
> believe anybody has claimed that this particular campaign will promote
> open standards in general.

I am just pointing out the lack of merits and benefits of this campaign.

>
>> >  4. It wouldn't open up the door for healthier competition
> Again, I don't believe anybody has claimed that it will open up the door
> for healthier competition.

Again, same here. Plenty of other open source initiatives are about 
keeping competition healthy - through the promotion of open standards. 
This one can't even claim that merit.

>> >  5. It would be done so that some people would feel more righteous about
>> >  themselves.
> This is ad hominem rubbish.
>
>> >  6. It would be done to keep the same principles of other campaigns they
>> >  ran before.
> I don't really understand what you're arguing here.

In that case you don't understand what I've been stating all along. In a 
sentence, FSFE are doing a lot of fuss about a non-issue - purely out of 
principle - in a case where their "principles" are not truly necessary 
and wouldn't bring the usual benefits of open sourceness. No financial 
savings, no promotion of open standards, no prmotion of healthy 
competition. Again - talking strictly about the pdf situation here.

The potential damage is that, next time when they or others start a 
truly necessary and meaningful campaign promoting open standards and 
open software - they might have just cried wolf one too many times - and 
they will be labelled as the fanatics who promote their principles at 
any cost - not because there are true benefits to be reaped from open 
source. Potentially.

If they lobby the government to implement a poorly thought out set of 
changes which will actually increase the IT costs to the government -it 
won't exactly get them a good reputation next time when they push Open 
Source as a credible solution.

That's what I call a bad strategy.

Sebastian