[Foundation-l] Software Policy Draft

[Florence Devouard]

Sebastian Moleski wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am convinced (maybe because I am one of those) that the Wikimedia
>> projects actually bring people who had absolutely no idea about the
>> difference in evilness or goodness ;-) between proprietary software or
>> free software to come and care about these issues.
>>
>> I was a Windoze and Adaubi advocate (and I mean the word advocate
>> here) not two years ago. I am running Linux on my machine and working
>> with The Gimp even on a professional level today. I do not believe
>> that "forcing" the "free" upon people is the way to go. Interess them,
>> poke them with it, make them understand. Be pedagogic and patient.
>> Don't "force" them. Teach them your "principles" rather than scare
>> them with "policy".
>>
>>> I won't mind if a user using IE is faced with a white screen with a link
>>> to use firefox :P
>> I do, if that means this person is hindered in their access to the
>> content we host.
> 
> 
> Me too. Our job is providing free access to the sum of all knowledge. With
> that in mind, the way how others access that content is an exogenous element
> the influence of which lies outside of our scope and is much better served
> by other organizations that have the express purpose to advocate certain
> types of technologies and methodologies (and collect funds for that
> purpose).
> 
> For us, the question nees to be: what technologies, what infrastructure does
> a user have to access our content and how can we accomodate that within
> reasonable constraints regarding finances and other resources? If we cannot
> accomdate a specific type of infrastructur or technology, what impact does
> that have on that user's ability to access our content? Are there
> substitutes or workarounds? Is there a third party that has the resources
> and the interest to cover our own inability?
> 
> Any self-imposed restriction to "only non-proprietary software" or "only
> technology with at least 40% market share" ends up being counter-productive
> to our own mission.
> 
> Sebastian

Agreed !

Someone was recently mentionning that openness or kindness were only 
means to an end. Free licenses, free format, free software are, in my 
opinion, exactly the same. There are a mean to an end, and this end is 
"providing free access to knowledge".

Being open and kind is one of our values just as freedom is one of our 
values.
It does not mean we should always be 100% open and kind, but we should 
strive to that, because it is a very good way to collect content, be 
appreciated, generate a friendly editing environment.
It does not mean we should provide content only to those using free 
software, but if we strive to ourselves provide as much as possible free 
content using free technology, we know we will ensure the best 
opportunities to access, modify and reuse the content.

Then, if on the way to our goal, our projects make others discover the 
benefits of being kind, of being open, of using free software etc... 
then it is a bonus. A very nice bonus. But not *the* goal itself.

Ant