[Liverpool] New FSFE Free PDF Readers Campaign

[Sebastian]

On 09/16/2010 10:35 PM, Bob Ham wrote:
> 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.

*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.

>
> 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.

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.

When there was a campaign against using MS Office in schools and various 
government organisations, I could see the point. Not only it would have 
saved a lot of money, but also:

1. Office document formats have always been closed source, proprietary, 
and Microsoft has gone out of its way to keep people from using them 
easily on other platforms.
2. Microsoft has artificially created a virtual stranglehold on 
industry, home users, government and education - ensuring that for many 
years, in order to successfully cooperate with others - one had to use 
the Office and it's formats.
3. Microsoft has distorted the office productivity market, and thwarted 
competition in the area.

While consider the Adobe pdf situation:

1. It seems to be accepted by everybody that pdf is an open standard 
(and it seems that it always was).
2. Adobe invested money in creating and promoting it, but for all their 
faults and sins - haven't really stopped anybody from implementing other 
software to read or create pdf's.
3. There are a plethora of software applications which can read pdf's 
and write pdf's in use - not exactly the sort of virtual monopoly that 
the office productivity software market has been for years.
4. The proposed change at best wouldn't save any money for the 
government or consumers directly - at worst would cost the government 
more money in IT support.

What I'm trying to say is that each situation should be looked at 
individually, on its merits, benefits and downsides. This campaign seems 
to be just taking the 'high and mighty' principled road - without caring 
much about how much benefit it would result in real life to people 
affected. As long as it's all kept ethical. Because all proprietary 
software is automatically unethical.

That's what I call blind dogma. This particular campaign:

1. It's not for all our good.
2. It wouldn't really improve our lives in anyway. It wouldn't save us 
money. It wouldn't make the process of dealing with document easier.
3. It wouldn't promote open standards (the pdf format is already open).
4. It wouldn't open up the door for healthier competition (they are not 
even campaigning for the government to use different pdf creators - that 
would at least put money in the pocket of other companies - or even 
better, to use free pdf creators - that would indeed save money).
5. It would be done so that some people would feel more righteous about 
themselves.
6. It would be done to keep the same principles of other campaigns they 
ran before. Even if this one is not actually needed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a huge fan of Adobe. But I stand even less 
nonsense.

Sebastian


>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liverpool mailing list
> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool