Hello everyone,
Apologies for the mass email.
I was wondering if anyone has a spare license for Adobe Creative Suite software kicking around somewhere that I might be able to use please. Any offer gratefully received!
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing? On Apr 17, 2012 12:40 PM, "Stevie Benton" stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hello everyone,
Apologies for the mass email.
I was wondering if anyone has a spare license for Adobe Creative Suite software kicking around somewhere that I might be able to use please. Any offer gratefully received!
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
-- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Text files writing PNMs, obviously.
(The answer is frequently "not within reason, and it's not like RMS is ever being let into Wikimania ever again".)
- d.
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Stevie needs standard tools to do his job and if someone has a spare license they might donate in-kind, all the better.
The output would be available in various open formats in line with our existing policies.
Open source tools exist, but let's be pragmatic about the inherent cost of attempting to use them if they are not widely accepted in the sector.
Cheers, Fae
On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Stevie needs standard tools to do his job and if someone has a spare license they might donate in-kind, all the better.
The output would be available in various open formats in line with our existing policies.
Open source tools exist, but let's be pragmatic about the inherent cost of attempting to use them if they are not widely accepted in the sector.
I believe our existing policy is to use open source tools whenever they exist and are fit-for-purpose. Just because they aren't the industry standard shouldn't be a reason not to use them.
On 17 April 2012 13:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe our existing policy is to use open source tools whenever they exist and are fit-for-purpose. Just because they aren't the industry standard shouldn't be a reason not to use them.
Cool, name something that is fit-for-purpose.
In the meantime, Stevie's request seems entirely sensible rather than expecting Wikimedia UK to fork out several hundred quid in licenses without seeing if we can get one as a donation.
Cheers, Fae
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is Audacity, for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for simple podcast editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm much more familiar with Photoshop (and more qualified to use it).
When it comes to design for brochures and booklets (for example) I'd use Adobe Fireworks to create any graphics or images I'd need. I'd use Acrobat to be able to work closely with designers, especially during an iterative design process (such as the ongoing one for our 2012 annual report) rather than listing everything in long open office documents. For video editing (vox pops and so on) I'd use Adobe Premiere.
Hopefully the above answers Tom M's question too. Beyond those pieces of software I can't imagine I'd use the rest of Adobe CS at the moment - although Dreamweaver may be useful for designing emails to members and donors.
On 17/04/2012 13:23, Fae wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:18, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I believe our existing policy is to use open source tools whenever they exist and are fit-for-purpose. Just because they aren't the industry standard shouldn't be a reason not to use them.
Cool, name something that is fit-for-purpose.
In the meantime, Stevie's request seems entirely sensible rather than expecting Wikimedia UK to fork out several hundred quid in licenses without seeing if we can get one as a donation.
Cheers, Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is Audacity, for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for simple podcast editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm much more familiar with Photoshop (and more qualified to use it).
I'd not consider GIMP "fit-for-purpose" for heavy/major image work. I use it (because I work on Linux) and it is a pain in the... compared to Photoshop.
When it comes to design for brochures and booklets (for example) I'd use Adobe Fireworks to create any graphics or images I'd need.
Have you tried Inkscape (FOSS vector image editor)? I used to use Fireworks a lot and Inkscape turned out to be, surprisingly, a worthy upgrade on that. But there can be a learning curve if you're only a casual Fireworks user. Worth considering.
Hopefully the above answers Tom M's question too. Beyond those pieces of
software I can't imagine I'd use the rest of Adobe CS at the moment - although Dreamweaver may be useful for designing emails to members and donors.
Oh noes! Please don't :P
Maybe try something like MailChimp's campaign editor (literally the best mail design tool ever!). Dreamweaver sucks bad enough for creating websites, let alone email ;) In fact - it might be worth looking at MailChimp for the Chapters mail campaigns/correspondence.
On the main topic: I have a few CS Licenses kicking around which may include some of the software you need (no promises, I just know they exist somewhere, not the state of them :P). Let me have a look.
Tom
On 17 April 2012 13:41, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Have you tried Inkscape (FOSS vector image editor)? I used to use Fireworks a lot and Inkscape turned out to be, surprisingly, a worthy upgrade on that. But there can be a learning curve if you're only a casual Fireworks user. Worth considering.
+1 to Inkscape. I think *most* of the SVGs on Commons are done with it.
You do need to work through the tutorials.
- d.
On 17 April 2012 13:45, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:41, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Have you tried Inkscape (FOSS vector image editor)? I used to use
Fireworks
a lot and Inkscape turned out to be, surprisingly, a worthy upgrade on
that.
But there can be a learning curve if you're only a casual Fireworks user. Worth considering.
+1 to Inkscape. I think *most* of the SVGs on Commons are done with it.
You do need to work through the tutorials.
Yup. it's at least as good as Illustrator now IMO.
Tom
I've never tried Inkscape actually, I'll give it a look. I'm not especially experienced with Fireworks, unlike Photoshop, in which I am. Glad I don't have to use Dreamweaver again - coupled with MS Front Page, I've never sworn at a piece of software so much. Mail Chimp sounds an excellent shout.
Tom, if a license does become available and you're happy to let me use it (even for a short period) that would be a massive help.
Many thanks,
Stevie
On 17/04/2012 13:41, Thomas Morton wrote:
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is Audacity, for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for simple podcast editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm much more familiar with Photoshop (and more qualified to use it).I'd not consider GIMP "fit-for-purpose" for heavy/major image work. I use it (because I work on Linux) and it is a pain in the... compared to Photoshop.
When it comes to design for brochures and booklets (for example) I'd use Adobe Fireworks to create any graphics or images I'd need.Have you tried Inkscape (FOSS vector image editor)? I used to use Fireworks a lot and Inkscape turned out to be, surprisingly, a worthy upgrade on that. But there can be a learning curve if you're only a casual Fireworks user. Worth considering.
Hopefully the above answers Tom M's question too. Beyond those pieces of software I can't imagine I'd use the rest of Adobe CS at the moment - although Dreamweaver may be useful for designing emails to members and donors.Oh noes! Please don't :P
Maybe try something like MailChimp's campaign editor (literally the best mail design tool ever!). Dreamweaver sucks bad enough for creating websites, let alone email ;) In fact - it might be worth looking at MailChimp for the Chapters mail campaigns/correspondence.
On the main topic: I have a few CS Licenses kicking around which may include some of the software you need (no promises, I just know they exist somewhere, not the state of them :P). Let me have a look.
Tom
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17 April 2012 13:51, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Glad I don't have to use Dreamweaver again - coupled with MS Front Page, I've never sworn at a piece of software so much. Mail Chimp sounds an excellent shout.
When I started programming it was in Frontpage :( bad memories. The Dreamweaver, more bad memories. Thank god for SublimeEdit! :)
Tom, if a license does become available and you're happy to let me use it
(even for a short period) that would be a massive help.
Unfortunately, having checked, the only Adobe license I have unused is for Adobe Contribute (the most pointless Adobe app ever...). Sorry Stevie!
Tom
No problem at all Tom, thank you very much for checking - and I hope FrontPage doesn't still give you nightmares!
On 17/04/2012 15:48, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:51, Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk mailto:stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Glad I don't have to use Dreamweaver again - coupled with MS Front Page, I've never sworn at a piece of software so much. Mail Chimp sounds an excellent shout.When I started programming it was in Frontpage :( bad memories. The Dreamweaver, more bad memories. Thank god for SublimeEdit! :)
Tom, if a license does become available and you're happy to let me use it (even for a short period) that would be a massive help.Unfortunately, having checked, the only Adobe license I have unused is for Adobe Contribute (the most pointless Adobe app ever...). Sorry Stevie!
Tom
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Checking my miscellanea, I have a still sealed copy of Adobe Acrobat 7 Standard for Windows which must have been part of an old system bundle of stuff. I guess this might be used as is, or used to get the upgrade price to Acrobat X on a Mac?
Cheers, Fae
If it's unused, it should be helpful. I'm running Windows 7 so as long as Acrobat 7 is compatible (and it should be) that would be very helpful indeed and provide one part of the mix!
Thank you,
Stevie
On 17/04/2012 16:03, Fae wrote:
Checking my miscellanea, I have a still sealed copy of Adobe Acrobat 7 Standard for Windows which must have been part of an old system bundle of stuff. I guess this might be used as is, or used to get the upgrade price to Acrobat X on a Mac?
Cheers, Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17 April 2012 16:08, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
If it's unused, it should be helpful. I'm running Windows 7 so as long as Acrobat 7 is compatible (and it should be) that would be very helpful indeed and provide one part of the mix!
Ah, I was looking at the Korean CD, the one with English on it has been opened so I might have installed it once on a long ago scrapped machine. Under the license terms I think re-using the software in the office ought to be fine as it would not be in current use anywhere else. I'll bring it into the office and you can test out the install process.
Cheers, Fae
On 17 April 2012 16:03, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
Checking my miscellanea, I have a still sealed copy of Adobe Acrobat 7 Standard for Windows which must have been part of an old system bundle of stuff. I guess this might be used as is, or used to get the upgrade price to Acrobat X on a Mac?
I've used Acrobat in Wine before, so it should be highly runnable in Wine on a Mac. (YMMV of course.)
- d.
On 17 April 2012 15:52, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
No problem at all Tom, thank you very much for checking - and I hope FrontPage doesn't still give you nightmares!
I don't know about Tom M, but FrontPage still gives *me* nightmares and I haven't used it for about 10 years!
On 17 April 2012 13:34, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Well, one piece of open source software I'll certainly be using is Audacity, for editing audio files. It's as good as anything around for simple podcast editing. GIMP is *not bad* for photo editing although I'm much more familiar with Photoshop (and more qualified to use it).
When it comes to design for brochures and booklets (for example) I'd use Adobe Fireworks to create any graphics or images I'd need. I'd use Acrobat to be able to work closely with designers, especially during an iterative design process (such as the ongoing one for our 2012 annual report) rather than listing everything in long open office documents.
Hmm desktop publishing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
For video editing (vox pops and so on) I'd use Adobe Premiere.
Hmm in principle Cinelerra would be an option but the reviews I've seen of that would be rather mixed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinelerra
On 17 April 2012 13:54, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm desktop publishing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
Last I used it, it was mostly useful for crashes. Are you mentioning it as someone who's actually used it for real work? 'Cos that's what we're after here.
- d.
On 17 April 2012 13:56, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:54, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm desktop publishing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
Last I used it, it was mostly useful for crashes. Are you mentioning it as someone who's actually used it for real work? 'Cos that's what we're after here.
Not personally. Desktop publishing isn't my turf (and open source chemical drawing stuff was a mess last I checked although closed source wasn't much better). On the other hand it does seem to be updated fairly regularly so it might be worth keeping an eye on.
On 17/04/2012 13:56, David Gerard wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:54, genigeniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm desktop publishing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus
Last I used it, it was mostly useful for crashes. Are you mentioning it as someone who's actually used it for real work? 'Cos that's what we're after here.
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I'm no expert in Scribus, and I've never really managed to make anything good with it (mind you, the same goes for every piece of software bar Sony Vegas Pro, even then thats debatable) but I will share what I do know, the "Linux Format" magazine is created using Scribus, or so I remember reading and its a very nice, good looking magazine, so it can be used to make brilliant stuff....
-- Lewis Cawte
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to be honest. On Apr 17, 2012 1:18 PM, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Stevie needs standard tools to do his job and if someone has a spare license they might donate in-kind, all the better.
The output would be available in various open formats in line with our existing policies.
Open source tools exist, but let's be pragmatic about the inherent cost of attempting to use them if they are not widely accepted in the sector.
I believe our existing policy is to use open source tools whenever they exist and are fit-for-purpose. Just because they aren't the industry standard shouldn't be a reason not to use them.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17/04/2012 14:11, James Farrar wrote:
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to be honest.
It really depends on whether collaborative editing is required. If it's merely used to produce an end product that is open / widely used format, then the program itself could be any that is capable even if they might not otherwise be considered industry standard.
KTC
On 17 April 2012 14:11, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to be honest.
Not the case outside of some health and safety stuff that is unlikely to apply to the office. MS office may be the industry standard but I would hope we would be using libreoffice.
Open Office actually.
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:42 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 14:11, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose,
to
be honest.
Not the case outside of some health and safety stuff that is unlikely to apply to the office. MS office may be the industry standard but I would hope we would be using libreoffice.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17/04/12 13:05, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?
Indeed there is. One part is.....
And it will run on the Microsoft Windows machines in the WMUK HQ....
Gordo
On 17 April 2012 12:40, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Hello everyone,
Apologies for the mass email.
I was wondering if anyone has a spare license for Adobe Creative Suite software kicking around somewhere that I might be able to use please. Any offer gratefully received!
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
What software, exactly, is needed? Creative Suite comes in a variety of flavours?
Tom
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and what exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
I think there is a much more sensible policy we could pursue here:
1. If there is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative, use it. 2. If not, use whatever the best priced solution is. 3. Use the community to help decide what the best solution is.
Given Wikipedia's inherent systemic bias towards young geeky men with computing experience, I'm sure some reasonably pragmatic advisers can be sought on a voluntary basis from within Wikimedia UK's membership.
Can I suggest to the board and to WMUK staffers to consider this very reasonable (I hope) proposal: find 3-5 computer folk from the community to give feedback on technical choices using the above guidelines. I'd be happy to help on that. But do it quietly and informally in the background, so every debate like this doesn't become some kind of ideological slanging match on the merits or otherwise of open source.
Often, if one isn't committed dogmatically to free software at any cost, there are good compromises one can make. For instance, there are increasingly good non-open-source alternatives to Photoshop available (on the Mac, there's Pixelmator, for instance) that cost significantly less.
Even if you are a free software fundamentalist, consider: less money spent on closed source software produces less evil overall, and leaves more money over to spend on the charitable aims of the Wikimedia movement.
Having some technical oversight from the community in the form of a lightweight 'geek cabal'* seems like it might be quite important given other discussions about things like mailing lists, having to run a locally-hosted OTRS-type system for fundraising email, and funding of tool development (stuff like Wikidata, Commons upload tools for projects like GLAM).
I think the point is to find a straightforward, drama-minimising way of making technical decisions in a pragmatic way but that's still informed by our values and preference for openness.
* The first rule of the cabal: you do not talk about how there is no cabal. Obviously.
On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and what exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
The fact is, that Stevie just asked if someone had some spare licenses for software so the charity would not have to splash out unnecessary cash. We have some :wmuk policies relating to the open source question that lots of people chipped in on, the discussion could carry on there, or people can join Tom in a cabal-with-no-name to quietly offer advice. Tom is hanging out on irc://freenode/wikimedia-uk if you want to join in.
In the meantime if anyone, apart from me, can *practically* help Stevie with his request for Adobe CS, please speak up.
Cheers, Fae
On 17 April 2012 18:33, Fae faenwp@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and what exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
The fact is, that Stevie just asked if someone had some spare licenses for software so the charity would not have to splash out unnecessary cash.
That's just a false dichotomy, though.
Having some technical oversight from the community in the form of a lightweight 'geek cabal'* seems like it might be quite important given other discussions about things like mailing lists, having to run a locally-hosted OTRS-type system for fundraising email, and funding of tool development (stuff like Wikidata, Commons upload tools for projects like GLAM).
If people are interested in getting involved with these kinds of things, and are prepared to make the commitment necessary to help us see some of these projects through, then great - please shout!
That would be much more helpful than 27-email threads about which individual bits of software everyone thinks our staff should use. ;-)
Chris
On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and what exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
I think there is a much more sensible policy we could pursue here:
- If there is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative, use it.
- If not, use whatever the best priced solution is.
- Use the community to help decide what the best solution is.
Given Wikipedia's inherent systemic bias towards young geeky men with computing experience, I'm sure some reasonably pragmatic advisers can be sought on a voluntary basis from within Wikimedia UK's membership.
1 and 2 are already policy. Forming a "WMUK Software Advisory Group" to help implement that policy is a good idea.
I think that simply stating "If there is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative, use it." isn't good enough. GIMP is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative but its not fit for purpose as a viable alternative for alot of publishing requirements. The standard just isn't close enough to photoshop to be viably used with significantly impinging on the quality of the work done by our staff as well as wasting time trying to train staff up in entirely new pieces of software. I made a genuine attempt to use gimp during my time at the foundation and its a very difficult piece of software to come to terms with particularly with a background in photoshop. This is unlike Inkscape, Audacity or OpenOffice, which are very easily picked up when you have used illustrator of MS Office.
I think that its important to asses whether it is fit for purpose intended and whether or not it is going to impinge on the work of our staff and not simply whether the piece of software is well developed.
Seddon
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:17:27 +0100 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license
On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris tom@tommorris.org wrote:
This thread seems to have become about open source vs. closed source, and what exactly counts as industry standard or best of breed.
I think there is a much more sensible policy we could pursue here:
- If there is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative, use it.
- If not, use whatever the best priced solution is.
- Use the community to help decide what the best solution is.
Given Wikipedia's inherent systemic bias towards young geeky men with computing experience, I'm sure some reasonably pragmatic advisers can be sought on a voluntary basis from within Wikimedia UK's membership.
1 and 2 are already policy. Forming a "WMUK Software Advisory Group" to help implement that policy is a good idea.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 17 April 2012 20:14, joseph seddon life_is_bitter_sweet@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
I think that simply stating "If there is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative, use it." isn't good enough. GIMP is a reasonably well-developed open source alternative but its not fit for purpose as a viable alternative for alot of publishing requirements. The standard just isn't close enough to photoshop to be viably used with significantly impinging on the quality of the work done by our staff as well as wasting time trying to train staff up in entirely new pieces of software.
That last point is key - unless the open source software is superior to the standard, familiarity is likely to mean the standard is a better choice. Hence the selection of Windows over Linux.
It's also worth noting that promotion of open-source software is not an Object of the charity.
On 17/04/12 23:19, James Farrar wrote:
That last point is key - unless the open source software is superior to the standard, familiarity is likely to mean the standard is a better choice. Hence the selection of Windows over Linux.
Yes, and they teach Word and Excel in schools.
It's also worth noting that promotion of open-source software is not an Object of the charity.
The "ethos" of open source goes with open knowledge and open formats in my mind.
Gordo
On 18 April 2012 15:02, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 17/04/12 23:19, James Farrar wrote:
It's also worth noting that promotion of open-source software is not
an Object of the charity.
The "ethos" of open source goes with open knowledge and open formats in my mind.
I think James has a good point. See
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc10.aspx#h1
Esp. the charity "is independent and recognises that it exists to pursue its own purposes and not to carry out the policies or directions of any other body."
Charles
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 18 April 2012 15:10, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 18 April 2012 15:02, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 17/04/12 23:19, James Farrar wrote:
It's also worth noting that promotion of open-source software is not an Object of the charity.
The "ethos" of open source goes with open knowledge and open formats in my mind.
I think James has a good point. See
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Publications/cc10.aspx#h1
Esp. the charity "is independent and recognises that it exists to pursue its own purposes and not to carry out the policies or directions of any other body."
Yes, it is a good point. We shouldn't be making ideological decisions unless they do actually further our objects. I think we can justify our policy of using FOSS whenever there isn't a strong reason not to, though, since supporting FOSS has knock-on benefits for open knowledge (more relevant is open formats rather than open source, but in reality they are closely linked - even when closed source software uses open formats they tend not to do it quite as openly as we would like).
On 18 April 2012 18:28, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, it is a good point. We shouldn't be making ideological decisions unless they do actually further our objects. I think we can justify our policy of using FOSS whenever there isn't a strong reason not to, though, since supporting FOSS has knock-on benefits for open knowledge (more relevant is open formats rather than open source, but in reality they are closely linked - even when closed source software uses open formats they tend not to do it quite as openly as we would like).
+1
It's not an overriding objective - getting the charity's work done actually has to take precedence - but using open source where feasiblethe is *very much* in line with our goals, and encouraging it advances them. Free content follows directly from free software. So I would suggest that we *try quite hard* to do stuff open source where feasible, with "feasible" being an operational decision.
- d.
On 18/04/12 15:10, Charles Matthews wrote:
Esp. the charity "is independent and recognises that it exists to pursue its own purposes and not to carry out the policies or directions of any other body."
Thanks for the update.......
Gordo (former Trustree of registered charirty).
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org