[Liverpool] New FSFE Free PDF Readers Campaign

[oscillik]

i wish Adobe would make a web browser...and i'd use it in Windows, and it'd
be great if it were to use the Trident renderer.

it'd be faster than Firefox, i can tell you that!

/trollface

On 16 September 2010 23:11, Sebastian <shop at open-t.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Liverpool mailing list
> Liverpool at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/liverpool
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/liverpool/attachments/20100916/f86f6095/attachment.htm>