On Tuesday 04 October 2011 16:56:29 Alan Pearce wrote:
I think the point here is that pdfreaders.org isn't an unbiased source of information about PDF readers. It isn't freepdfreaders.org, after all. It seems that they are indicating a willingness to link to an *unbiased* source of information about PDF readers.
So perhaps if the site included information on proprietary PDF readers, perhaps including warnings based on the number of security exploits or something similar, it would indicate the best choices without being biased against closed-source.
Thanks for sharing your views, and welcome to these lists :)
The PDF Readers campaign is about promoting Free Software PDF Readers, Open Standards, and Free Software in general. Being biased involves unfair favouritism, but there is no unfairness in the campaign's choosing to promote only Free Software. Obviously there are good reasons why pdfreaders.org and FSFE only promotes Free Software.
No public institutions should be promoting, or worse, requiring the use of software that does not respect the user's freedom. Public organisations have legal and moral responsibilities not subvert the good of the public unnecessarily. So in fact they should not be promoting any PDF readers except Free Software ones. They can do this easily by linking to pdfreaders.org.
In the letter that I sent to the councils we did not say that this was the only way to improve their information, and we did not encourage them to lie and say that only Free Software PDF readers are available. They can state that there are a variety of readers, and here is a list of some Free Software ones. They could also link to several readers themselves. PDFReaders.org does state that other readers are available.
(This is my first message since joining, let me know if I got something wrong)
Your comments are much appreciated!
Thanks,
Sam.