What people seem to have been stepping around in this thread so far is the fact that Pediapress's software chain includes some components that they have NOT released as open source. There seems to be ongoing confusion about this. If there was an open source toolchain for doing what Pediapress currently does, then Wikimedia itself or any third party organization or individual could use it to create manuscripts suitable for printing, and use any printer they liked to achieve that end. I think the crux of the argument should be: is it OK for Wikimedia to have a partnership with a service provider who uses closed source software as an integral part of the service they provide. Pediapress sets a precedent that says "yes, that's completely fine". And maybe it is, but it is then just wrong to refer to this as an "open source" way of working.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:07 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwy...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we're concerned about the WMF referring in its blog to a for-profit > organisation that happens to be working with us in a way that is > open-source, offline and furthering our mission to distribute our content > widely, why did no one complain about the OpenMoko Wikireader being in the > WMF blog: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
