Re: [Bug-gnupedia] Content Format

[hooker]

> "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?

> > 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.

> > 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.

Paul