Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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). ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 18 April 2012 18:28, Thomas Dalton 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 kn

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 18 April 2012 15:10, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 18 April 2012 15:02, Gordon Joly 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 18 April 2012 15:02, Gordon Joly 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 ha

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 n

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 20:14, joseph seddon 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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.dal...@gmail.com > To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wik

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris 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: > > 1. If there is a reasonably well-developed

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 18:33, Fae wrote: > On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris 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 > f

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

> > 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 devel

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 18:15, Tom Morris 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 what

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 15:52, Stevie Benton 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! ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17/04/2012 13:56, David Gerard wrote: On 17 April 2012 13:54, geni 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 he

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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. http://www.gimp.org/ And it will run on the Microsoft Windows machines in the WMUK HQ Gordo ___ Wik

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 16:08, Stevie Benton 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 Ado

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 > wrote: Glad I don't have to use Dreamweaver again - cou

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:51, Stevie Benton 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, mo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

Open Office actually. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:42 PM, geni wrote: > On 17 April 2012 14:11, James Farrar 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 14:11, James Farrar 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 its

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to be honest. On Apr 17, 2012 1:18 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae wrote: > > On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:56, David Gerard wrote: > On 17 April 2012 13:54, geni 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:54, geni 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. _

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:34, Stevie Benton 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:45, David Gerard wrote: > On 17 April 2012 13:41, Thomas Morton > 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 curv

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:41, Thomas Morton 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

> > 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 c

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:18, Thomas Dalton 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 mea

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 12:40, Stevie Benton 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 regard

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae wrote: > On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton 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 wo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton 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 lin

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton 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. ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing? On Apr 17, 2012 12:40 PM, "Stevie Benton" 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

[Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

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 Wik