[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [school-discuss] Presentation for local SD - beware the FUD

2008/4/19, Richard Andrews <bbmaj7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> --- Guido Arnold <watsolldat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > One remark in the beginning that when you speak of Free Software, you
> > mean free as in freedom, not as in free beer, will solve the issue.
> I'm not a presenter (yet) but I have been collating experiences from those who
> have been doing this. What I am hearing is that school administrations are not
> interested in discussing philosophy but rather want to focus on functionality
> and value.
I didn't mean to suggest to change the focus, I just don't think that
"freedom" is something that needs to be hidden. It's a value itself.

It perfectly fits in the last topic of Richard's guideline:
  * Open Source Software has no licensing headaches
         o You can legally copy it as many times as you want (you are
encouraged to do so)
         o If you find a good program give it to your colleagues
         o You will never be committing piracy

So, depending on how you sell them, the freedoms can be "sexy".

You may add to Richard's list:
         o You'll never step into the vendor-lock-in trap (as long as
you stick to Free Software)

It's important to be aware of the necessity of the freedoms. Otherwise
they are quickly lost; and all the pragmatic advantages with them.

> At least on the initial approach the term "free" has all the wrong conotations.

That was the reason why I wrote my initial email. You can eliminate
the "wrong" connotations if you specify in the beginning what you mean
by "free".

> The philosophy of freedoms make perfect sense to you and I but a school
> administrator must be focused on results, costs and risks.

I don't see where freedom bears any risks. But school administrators
must also focus what they teach their pupils. Freedom and "helping
each other" should match with most school policies. It's certainly not
on most administrators priority list, but it's still a valid and
important argument.

> Anything that sounds radical or unstable raises the Risk flag.

I know what you mean, but just reading the words, that "freedom"
sounds radical or unstable and is thus questionable, is weird.