On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 04:05, Rajarshi Guha wrote:
> 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 :)
i'm sure linux zealots wouldn't do that (you are one of them, surely?),
though GNU/Linux zealots might. and if you thought for a moment about
people who devoted their life's work to realising their dreams, perhaps
you'd think twice before ridiculing their ideals.
> 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?
you missed my point. providing the slides only in an open and free
format is not equivalent to shutting some people out. "OSS", as you call
it, is not a particular brand of software. the OOo file specifications
are there for everyone to study and use. that makes them not OOo file
formats specifically, but a freely available and well-documented file
format specification that can be used by any program. it is incidental
that only OOo is using it at present. i'm certain many free programs in
the future will adopt it rather than re-invent the wheel. so it is
actually proprietary software companies who disallow their customers to
view/use free data by refusing to relax their stranglehold on the
market. the only way to force them to do so will be not to come to any
compromise with them, while continuing to develop and disseminate
quality free software.
i realise that following this strategy may result in losing about 10 -
15% viewership for our slides. what i would have done in this situation
is stick to the policy, and insert a small explanation near the download
links, explaining why we stuck to free formats only. imho, that token of
integrity would intrigue and inspire more people to take a closer look
at free software than any technology-oriented advocacy in our slides.
and talking about numbers, have you ever thought why exactly it is
necessary to swell the ranks of linux users? what is the reason for the
existence of LUG-s? is it only the technological superiority of our OS
that brings us together? why do you practise linux advocacy at all
(assuming you do)? if linux were merely free as in beer, and somewhat
more dependable than windows, there would be no movement, no pride, no
community, no sense of rendering service to society, and little
advocacy. there would just have been so many individual linux users,
mostly isolated on their thousand little islands.
we belong, because we believe.
> But this comment stinks of zealotry!
^^^^^^
are you sure that's the word you wanted to use? let us do this in a
civilised manner, shall we?
> > 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.
right. and we aren't saying that people *have* to see our slides, or
*have* to use OOo, but merely that if they want to see them they can use
any program that reads free formats.
> 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.
as i explained earlier, there ain't no such animal as an OOo format. it
is a free format that's currently used by OOo only. nothing's stopping
other programs from adopting it. publishing only in that format may be
restrictive in the short term, but desirable in the larger scheme of
things. other free formats may also be accomodated, like those used by
magicpoint and kpresenter.
> 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.
you know, that's a good idea. resolves the difference nicely. count my
vote for this. webmaster, are you listening?
- t.
--
cogito, ergo es.
--
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
