Re: [Fsfe-uk] Useful background on FLOSS in education

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-08-28 09:06:17 +0100 ian <address@hidden> wrote:
> I think on balance its supportive. Ok, some bits are a bit lacking 
> from
> a purist perspective, but it certainly better than that QnetiQ study
> that was floating about. The critical judgement is whether it will get
> us more people converted to the idea of free software or fewer?

Oh sure, on balance it is.  FWIW, my main problems are with the buggy 
definitions of open source (to include development model is a howler) 
and free software (taken from a buggy EU report), but I'm sure there 
are other smaller niggles.  We need to work on promoting FSF so that 
people stop reposting buggy copies and just take the definition from 
theirs.  I could probably post an annotated copy given time if it 
wasn't a PDF under a rather restrictive licence ;-)

Will this get more people converted?  Probably, but they'll have a 
buggy idea of what they're converting to.  As many marketing-heads 
tell me, if you create an expectation that doesn't match reality, 
you're setting up to disappoint.  That's why accuracy is important: 
let people know what they will get.  It should be more than enough.

MJR/slef