Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] The GIF issue

[David W. Jablonski]

On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 08:55, Dan Kuykendall (Seek3r) wrote:
> Loic Dachary wrote:
> > 
> >         It seems a very long explanation to say something very simple. You
> > changed your mind. In June 2001 you agreed to remove the GIF files from
> > phpGroupWare, explicitly, as part of the necessary steps to become part
> > of the GNU project.
> 
> I did not change my mind. I thought I had agreed to convert all the
> png's to gifs, and put in place the changes to the image finding
> functions so that PNG would be prefered. I did not know that I could not
> include GIF's in the package at all. I had always intented to have both
> so that users could use either ones they wanted.

Freedom of choice for the end users is definately something you should
consider.  I saw a suggestion earlier about placing the gifs somewhere
else and setting up phpgw to support gifs.  Then *IF* the end user would
want to download the gif files from somewhere else the themes and such
could support them through end user preferences.  
  
> 
> >         Could you, in addition, explain why and for what reason you think
> > that the GNU project should not boycott GIF anymore ? Or outline the new
> > GIF boycott policy so that it fits with phpGroupWare policy ? 
> 
> I will need to research the issue in greater detail to put togther a
> more full argument. At this point I am only working off of what I know
> from basic observation of the issue. I have not done extensive research,
> nor heard about any real threat from unisys. The couple times I have
> heard anything about unisys going after anyone, it was generally big
> players and didnt seem to me that they had a case. I feel by the time
> they could go after someone like me their patent will have expired. 
> 
> > I guess
> > you don't subscribe to http://burnallgifs.org/ either ?

I also understand that FSF fights battles in court and out for people
against stupid things such as software patents.  I can't seem them
agreeing to having gifs hosted on their hardware.  How can they fight
against them when one of their projects uses them?

> 
> Not fully no. I tend to try and always see both sides of any issue.
> burnallgifs.org only looks at one side and its most extreme, and at this
> point I would need to spend more some looking into opposing viewpoints
> to some to some final conclusion.
> 
> >         Maybe I'm too sensitive on this subject. I'd like to see more
> > support against software patents because they are likely to hit Europe
> > soon. Sometime it requires more than merely working around existing
> > software patents. It requires to stand against them, boycotting GIF files,
> > for instance.
> 
> I too have a big issue with software patents. I realize how dangerous
> they can be, and am always willing to speak out against them. 
> However, unlike you the gif issue is not something personal to me. I
> dont want to offend you in any way, but I will speak my opinion and am
> glad for some friendly debate. It is *not* personal.
> 
> I have no problem adding a copy of the nogif page from GNU.org, making
> PNG's the default in phpGW or anything else like that. I just dont see
> the need to yank out all the gif's for users that want to use them.
> 

This is why it can just become a add-on.  Not part of the core which is
hosted on FSF boxes.  If anybody challenges FSF on the gif issue they
can just reply that the official phpGroupware product that resides on
Savannah is gif free and that if end users want to include gifs that is
their choice.  

I'm of the belief that the FSF can't force phpgw to not support gifs
that they can just force phpgw to not host the gif files on their
hardware and that if individual package maintainers plus the core
developers can find a place to host the gif files than fine.  Completely
keeps FSF out of it.

This means more work but I believe it can be worked out.

My $0.02.  

-- 
David W. Jablonski, RHCE, MCSE
Systems Administrator
http://www.weccusa.org
http://www.energyfinancesolutions.com