[freeroleplay] Re: [Fwd: Free-Content Licensing of FUDGE]
- From: Jamie Jensen <yarvin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: freeroleplay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:24:40 -0600
> > > Do I gain anything with a transparency clause which I wouldn't
> > > with a no-DRM clause? Do I really want to have to tell someone to
> > > stop using Yags just because their favourite editor is MS Word?
> >
> > Well, I don't think its about you gaining anything but about benefiting
> > your downstream users. By publishing a transparent format they don't
> > have to worry about, for example, purchasing expensive software to open
> > and edit your content.
>
> Another way to look at it however, is that the 'expensive software'
> is for most people the default way of doing things. Now, it's not a
> state of affairs that I'm particularly fond of, but for most people
> a document in OpenOffice format is actually harder to read than a
> document in MS Word format. And yet OO is considered more transparent.
>
You make a good point there, Sam.
On the other hand, OpenOffice.org's format is public rather than only
documented within Microsoft. Were it not for the fact that the
knowledge is based on experiment and induction, I would even say that
Word is Transparent, since OO.org and many other editors can handle
it.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to attempt to avoid both formats
(and I say this as an OO.org fan).
> MS Word format, but for the most part OO, antiword or even Google can
> deal with that, with arguably less hassle than the editor would have
> had if he'd needed to download OO or learn how to hack HTML in notepad.
Yes, I agree, but see above and below.
>
> I reckon that the majority of people would rather either ignore the
> license or not bother, than go to the effort of finding a transparent
> editor.
Hmm... good argument. However, since Microsoft plans to patent its
future versions of its Office file formats, most Free Software purists
will not even be able to read it.
--
J. Jensen
Other related posts:
