5 ms·

"While Google Docs is free (as in beer), it is not free as in freedom. Some people will not use software because of that." The correct inference to make from t

"While Google Docs is free (as in beer), it is not free as in freedom. Some people will not use software because of that." The correct inference to make from that is "and those people will miss out on certain opportunities as a result," not "so everyone else should bend over backward to accomodate their self-imposed restrictions."

apgwoz 18y ago
I think you miss the point of free software. The thing free software people are trying to _avoid_ is restrictions. Lets remind ourselves of the 4 freedoms the Free Software Definition states: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- gabrielroth 18y ago
  I'm familiar with the advantages of free software. But if you refuse to use proprietary software, you are, by definition, imposing a restriction on yourself. I'd also suggest that, when someone makes valuable business documents available to others (a fine example of 'free software'), and you decline to use them because they're in a ubiquitous proprietary format, you are maybe missing the free-software forest for the trees.
  - apgwoz 18y ago
    > and you decline to use them because they're in a ubiquitous proprietary format, you are maybe missing the free-software forest for the trees. I didn't decline to use them. I suggested that it would be nice if these documents were in a format that was more open. Perhaps something with a half-life of 10 years. I didn't mention it before, but I've noticed that in Office for Mac 2008(7? whatever) the default file format is .docx. OOXML to my knowledge is now a standard, so it seems as though Microsoft is _trying_ to play nice with others. However, there's already another standard, OpenDocument.

apgwoz 18y ago

I think you miss the point of free software. The thing free software people are trying to _avoid_ is restrictions. Lets remind ourselves of the 4 freedoms the Free Software Definition states: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

gabrielroth 18y ago
I'm familiar with the advantages of free software. But if you refuse to use proprietary software, you are, by definition, imposing a restriction on yourself. I'd also suggest that, when someone makes valuable business documents available to others (a fine example of 'free software'), and you decline to use them because they're in a ubiquitous proprietary format, you are maybe missing the free-software forest for the trees.
- apgwoz 18y ago
  > and you decline to use them because they're in a ubiquitous proprietary format, you are maybe missing the free-software forest for the trees. I didn't decline to use them. I suggested that it would be nice if these documents were in a format that was more open. Perhaps something with a half-life of 10 years. I didn't mention it before, but I've noticed that in Office for Mac 2008(7? whatever) the default file format is .docx. OOXML to my knowledge is now a standard, so it seems as though Microsoft is _trying_ to play nice with others. However, there's already another standard, OpenDocument.