On 16.09.2010 18:35, Michael Snow wrote: > Whether it's the file format or the viewer, I don't see that much > difference and I think the question has pretty much been asked and > answered already. Part of the issue is that we're committed not just to > freedom of access, but also freedom of reproduction, so that mirrors or > downstream users should be able to freely recreate the experience if > they wish.
I have some understanding for that argument. However mirrors etc. would still have the alternative of using the free but bad quality viewers if they don't want to spend the 90$. > If the Wikimedia Foundation tried to absorb the costs of proprietary > software as suggested, there are a couple problems. The first problem is > that the foundation can only absorb some, not all, of the social impacts > of such a choice, no matter how much it tries to pick up the full > logistical and financial costs. The second problem is what else the > foundation would start to absorb, in the sense of cultural connections > and obligations, as a result of making such a choice. Those are very weak arguments: social impact... cultural connections... We live in a world of competition between open source and proprietary software. This competition has blossomed into products like Firefox or Windows 7. When we /a priori/ exclude one or the other we will miss the chance of using the really best software. I'm disappointed to see Wikimedia being trapped in it's own philosophy. Given this situation the only alternative we have is to actively let somebody program the requested feature or to wait until somebody does it spontaneously. Both ways it may take years to have a satisfactory result. Regards Robin Schwab _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
