Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Content Format

[Dan Geiser]

Hi, Paul,
Thanks for participating in the conversation...

> Paul writes:
>
> > "Hook" <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > We're talking about a practical issue of allowing, or not, > > 
> potential authors to use and submit articles written using the > > worlds 
> most common word processing software.
> >
> > Free software is not about practicality, but about principles. If
> > pragmatism is what you want, the open source movement (not free
> > software) is the answer.
>
> I see the beginnings of a dual standard here. On the one hand, there's > 
> the call for complete editorial freedom to encourage views (accurate or 
> not) to persist, with the emphasis on accuracy being reduced. On the other, 
> there's an almost religious fervour against "no free software" to the 
> extent that anyone who uses MSWord won't be permitted > to submit articles. 
>  Did RMS *really* mean this?

I don't see a dual standard there.  Comparing "complete editorial freedom" 
vs. "the use of non-free software" is like comparing apples and oranges.  
They are not opposite sides of the same issue.

I think some people do have a frevor about free software.  If it wasn't for 
that fervor I doubt if the FSF or GNU would exist.

I also haven't seen where anyone has implied that if you use Microsoft Word 
you will not be permitted to submit articles.  I use Microsoft Word everyday 
and I will submit articles.  I just won't submit them in Word format.

> > > Currently I've not heard of Microsoft claiming *any* rights over
> > > content produced using their software, and I'd appreciate someone
> > > quoting chapter and verse if I'm wrong.
> >
> > This isn't the issue. Word is not a free format, and Microsoft has
> > pursued authors of programs which include support for some of their
> > formats (I posted an article here earlier).
> >
> > > If there was a practical alternative, then, yes, I'd agree, but
> > > there isn't.
> >
> > Who cares if there's a ``practical'' alternative or not; practicality
> > has nothing to do with this.
>
> Unless you're living in a cave, or producing a product for very limited
> use, then practicality has *everything* to do with it.

If participation is attractive enough people will take the extra steps to do 
whatever they need to do to participate.  Take the Internet and World-Wide 
Web, for example.  People all over the world have had to learn all kinds of 
things like HTML and how to connect to their local ISP, etc. just to 
participate in something they thought sounded interesting to them.

> > > There are a large number of able, intelligent people out there who
> > > have struggled to get comfortable with MS Word and are likely to be
> > > reluctant to change for reasons which they probably won't be
> > > interested enough to understand.
> >
> > They don't have to change what software they use.
> >
> > > Discriminating aginst them is far worse than any editorial control.
> >
> > Then we should use IIS on Windows 2000 and forget about the entire
> > free software movement.
>
> On stability grounds alone, few would agree with you, and, yes, I *do*
> understand the sarcasm. However, GNE is (by my understanding anyway) about 
> free content; surely the tools have to be pervasive, easily understood and 
> accepted by the community of authors. Note that, for me, it's the community 
> of *authors* that's the important point here. If MSWord documents aren't 
> acceptable for long term storage, then certainly convert them, but refusing 
> to accept them seems crazy.

I think GNE is about having a free alternative to the content that many 
companies will want to make you pay for in the future.  Of course, the 
community of authors is very important.

RMS says in the Project Announcement: "The last and most important rule for 
pages in the encyclopedia is the exclusionary rule: If a page on the web 
covers subject matter that ought to be in the encyclopedia or the course 
library, but its license is too restricted to qualify, we must not make 
links to it from encyclopedia articles or from courses."

Now if we're going to forgo information of this nature, it's a safe bet that 
we're willing to forgo the contributions of authors who refuse to contribute 
their material in a free format.

Regards,
Dan Geiser <address@hidden>

The Word of the Day is GNE.  Help Spread the Word!
http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com