Re: [seul-edu] Re: ISO project--a different approach

[Ben Armstrong <synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca>]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 05:37:20PM +0530, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> I think Openoffice.org (it is *OpenOffice.org* not openoffice) installs
> and works in a no java mode.  I recall seeing an option while installing
> my version.

Sigh.  You did not read what I wrote.  I said it doesn't *build* (as in from
source) without the non-free Java.  You are correct.  It installs and works
without Java (which I also said).  This disqualifies Openoffice from being
included officially in Debian until the non-free build dependency is
resolved.  And again, as I said, the debian-openoffice team is working on
that.  It's just going to take some time.

> and, Ben Armstrong wrote:-

I did not write this.  Doug Loss did:

> > FWIW, I don't think OpenOffice should be high on the priority list to
> >  get on our ISO.  Isn't it already shipped, or planned to be shipped,
> >  with all the major distros? ....... Additionally, it's pretty large
> > and I'd like to use the space for more specifically educational apps
> > first.
>
> Well, I do not think so.  ( I's subject to correction).  Would'nt it be
> a good idea to have a standard word processor in the eductaion
> environment?  Looking around, a good and easy to use office suite ( read
> -- word processor ) is one of the reasons (home) users are reluctant to
> move away from non-free s/w.

Office suites aren't word processors.  See Abiword.

> Familiarity with OpenOffice.org at a young age is definitely going to
> influence in choice of s/w in future, and that why M$ is nowadays 
> distributing "free" (as in beer) s/w to schools.

A noble political agenda.  But foisting off bloatware on young students who
only really need a word processor is part of the M$ mentality.  Do we really
want to emulate that?

> And, who says that an office suites are not educational apps?  Kids will 
> use a wordprocessor to create / write reports, won't they?

Shades of grey.  Until high school or university (and even then probably
only for business courses) I cannot see where an office suite fits into
education.  A stronger argument might be made for a word processor.  But
even so, a word processor tends to be assumed as a "standard component" of a
desktop system these days and thus is not specifically an educational
application.

I'm not saying don't use Openoffice in schools, by the way.  By all means,
go ahead and advocate use of it.  Just don't classify it as an "educational
application".  There really are two components to every educational network
installation:

1. The infrastructure (hardware, software) on which the educational
   applications rest.  This arguably includes not only the desktop
   environment (be that a lightweight windowmanager, GNOME, or KDE)
   but also some "core desktop applications" such as a text editor,
   word processor, etc.  What is considered a "core" application
   is of course open to interpretation.  A rule of thumb is the
   average end-user would be surprised if their system didn't come
   with one "out of the box" without further software purchases or
   downloads.

2. The educational applications themselves.

The hardware we clearly cannot provide.  The software infrastructure
(standard operating system / desktop environment) we could provide, but have
chosen to leave to the various Linux distros out there.  The educational
applications themselves are the focus of the ISO project.  If you include
"word processor" as part of the software infrastructure, then even Abiword
isn't an "educational application".  The only argument for including it is
that it is small enough to include and may not be installed by default when
you select your distribution's "default desktop environment" option at
install time.

> Regarding the license of OpenOffice.org, this is what the license.txt 
> file in my OpenOffice.org installation directory says:-

The license of Openoffice.org itself was never in dispute.  Not by me,
anyway.

> > You may only copy and distribute this program consistent with the
> > requirements and distribute this Program consistent with the
> > requirements of either the GNU General Public License (GPL) and GNU
> > Lesser General Public License (LGPL) or the Sun Industry Standards
> > Source License (SISSL), respectively, depending on whether you
> > elected to obtain access to this program via the GPL/LGPL Option or
> > the SISSL Option. Copies of the GPL, LGPL and SISSL licenses can be
> > found http://www.openoffice.org/project/www/license.html
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.

My conclusion, as stated before is that, although Openoffice itself is under
a DFSG-free license, because of its non-free build dependency, it needs to
go into contrib and therefore cannot (yet) be an official part of Debian.
If you need further background, please see http://www.debian.org/social_contract

This is all shortly going to be a moot point, as I fully expect the
debian-openoffice will achieve their goal of getting OO to build with a free
Java implementation.  So if you don't mind, I'm dropping the license thing
(again).

Ben
-- 
    nSLUG       http://www.nslug.ns.ca      synrg@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
    Debian      http://www.debian.org       synrg@debian.org
[ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0  1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]
[ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387  2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]