-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 19 March 2003 13:41, Tathagata Banerjee wrote:
> no, because OOo uses open, free, xml-based formats that can be decoded > by any other software equipped to do so. none do so at present, but > hopefully that will change, and i'm talking about the principle of the > thing. Talking about principles is nice, and but when it comes down to action, principles can get compromised a little. At this point the linux zealots will jump up and scream that they would die rather than compromise :) But we have to face the fact that there are lots of people using non free s/w. Does that mean we refuse to allow people who use non free software to view information content produced by the LUG? This seems to me to be sort of a viscious cycle: unless you're using OSS s/w you cant view OSS info (ie info produced by a LUG) and unless you're able to view such info, how do you get to know about OSS s/w? Granted the above argument is a little stretched, but I think this would apply to a person in Calcutta (on dialup) who has read of OSS somewhere, wants to know a little more, comes to the Cal LUG site and finds out that he cant view any of the slides. You could say somewhere on the page that he needs to download OO - but if I were in his position I would go to another site which allowed me easier access to information rather than going through the hoops of getting OO > to accept only > open-format files is not the same as to accept only closed-format files. > the latter erects a barrier of exclusivity; the former invites adoption > and inclusion. It still seems that by only allowing OO slides instead of anything else excludes people who are using other programs - so in effect you're erecting a barrier of exclusivity - in terms of program use. You say that it invites adoption and inclusion but what if a person is not willing to jump on to OSS s/w? What if a person has paid money for his copy of Powerpoint? Powerpoint is a very nice peice of software and if I had paid money for it I would use it rather than throw out my investment and switch to an equivilant OSS s/w (but thats just me) The immediate reply is too bad for them. people with such inflexible attitudes will have little use for our slides. But this comment stinks of zealotry! It sounds arrogant and I'm pretty sure that a OSS newbie when faced with such a comment would feel a little put off. Of course, its too bad that they use Powerpoint when we have decent open source stuff available. But the fact is people will still use Powerpoint for various reasons ranging from laziness to the need for some specific Powerpoint feature. Thus, going by your statement, a user who has always used Windows, but does'nt know too much about OSS, Linux et al wuld not be given the opportunity to read material published by a LUG (at least slide presentations). > look at what the GPL does. it decreases a user's options by disallowing > him to make non-free changes to the source-code. IMHO, this is a Good > Thing. to protect certain essential rights, you need to restrict some > others. True. But then again, the GPL does'nt say that you *have* to use the GPL. If you choose to use the GPL then you have to follow certain rules. And if I dont like those rules I dont use the GPL. But the PPT vs OO slides issue seems to be different from the GPL example you have used, in that if you dont use OO you cant use these slides, bad luck - you have no other choice. Publishing OO slides is thus a Good Thing; restricting slides to OO is not. > compatibility with non-free software is a contingent measure, a > strategic truce till that form of software becomes obsolete. > it is merely a working arrangement, not something to be advertised. So you assume that non free software will become obsolete. That seems to be stretching it a little bit and it would be nice to see what opinions people have, but I digress. I dont regard pubishing PPT slides as a form of advertising - its just saying that 'we handle everything'. Maybe to make things clearer you could say 'we handle everything, but prefer OSS solutions' Actually I think that things would be simplified by placing HTML versions of the slides on the LUG website - thus avoiding the 'advertising' that you mention. Then all the 'dirty' work of converting PPT to HTML can be done by the webmaster in the background, though in my opinion the fact that OSS s/w is capable of handling the evil formats out there is something to be proud of! - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajarshi Guha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://jijo.cjb.net> GPG Fingerprint: 0CCA 8EE2 2EEB 25E2 AB04 06F7 1BB9 E634 9B87 56EE - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+ePCVG7nmNJuHVu4RAqjZAKDPmJfLhJY5gBgNHWwU160yXBbTwQCaA0Gf 2mQjC3Ajm8M8kIy817Wf2lM= =w5HO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/node.php?id=3
