On Sunday 9. February 2020 19.57.50 Nico Rikken wrote:
> I like your line of thinking.
Nice to hear from you again, Nico! :-)
Well, I think we cannot just make assumptions about things magically happening
all by themselves. Instead, we have to consider the economic models involved,
and that requires us to consider the bigger picture.
> The Reuse software is a great example I think, rather than starting a
> full-blown European GNU project.
Reuse [1] only really quality-assures existing Free Software licensing,
however. Finding myself back in an academic environment, with licensing
applied unclearly to software or even an absence of proper licensing in some
cases, I do see the need for things like Reuse. But its role in getting new
Free Software written is going to be somewhat less directly significant
compared to other initiatives, in my opinion.
Now, the GNU project [2] is actually relevant here, since it aims to offer a
complete system. But interactions with the wider world mean that it might not
address every possible user need. Thus, amongst the guidance about helping the
GNU project and Free Software in general [3], we find the familiar FSF high-
priority project listing [4].
But PDF software improvements were taken off that list in 2011 [5] (whose link
to GNU PDF now leads to non-free software), with it then having been suggested
to reinstate them in 2016 [6]. The response is arguably disappointing:
"We're still debating whether to make the addition or not, as PDF is in long
term decline -- not nearly as steep as Flash, but still becoming ever less
central."
I guess it depends on perspectives. I look at quite a few datasheets: all of
them are PDF documents. My bank produces PDF documents for invoices, receipts
and other records. The suggestion to use PDF.js is a good one, which is
presumably why it is bundled with things like Firefox. I imagine that a lot of
people get a lot of benefit from it. So much for a format in decline,
especially since as a kind of archive format it will be with us for a long
time to come.
> I've heard the issues with PDF documents before in the Netherlands.
> Perhaps it makes sense to pinpiont the software requirements, and work
> to development a generic extension that can be included in one or more
> pdf editors?
It would certainly be worthwhile. What we apparently see is that familiar
phenomenon where "mission accomplished" is declared but where the mission is
open-ended; where "we got this" is announced but years later the software is
abandoned (in other cases) or not covering the needs of the users (in this
case).
Given that the problem area is likely to be one of the proprietary forms
technologies from Adobe [7], only some of which have been pushed into ISO
32000 (which being an ISO standard isn't genuinely open, anyway), it might be
unfair to expect Free Software support to track these technologies,
particularly completely proprietary ones [8], and still maintain a usable
level of support. Indeed, it is creditable that support does exist and appears
to be maintained [9].
I can see a few areas of work, however...
1. Advocacy of, and insistence on, genuinely open standards that meet the
needs of users. People may need to exchange documents (including forms), but
the technologies involved have to be genuinely open and accessible. If
insisting on a properly standardised version of PDF means that certain
necessary features (such as forms) are missing, then other means of providing
such features need to be advocated and provided.
2. Monitoring of organisations - particularly public agencies - to ensure that
people stick to the rules. It is too easy for institutions to procure
proprietary software (various Adobe "suites" in this case, perhaps) and to
impose proprietary technologies on random people. There should be mechanisms
to prevent and correct non-compliance, and such policing should not have to
fall on random volunteers (as it did with the PDF Readers campaign).
3. Assistance for developers implementing necessary and advocated
functionality. Too often, such work is framed as something for volunteers to
do, but such work is also fairly thankless and tedious, with other people
seemingly content to wait for the hard work to be done and then to use it for
their own personal gain. I would argue that people who are intellectually
curious and who engage themselves in such work without asking for reward are
actually being exploited. Is the Free Software movement comfortable with
perpetuating the trends of exploitation that now pervade wider society?
4. Cultivation of expertise and knowledge sharing amongst developers. Another
phenomenon is where people are willing to undertake development tasks, but
then they are more or less driven away by those with the expertise and
knowledge. Reasons for this include plain old-fashioned selfishness (keeping
the opportunities within a clique), but it can also include a lack of time due
to other commitments (they already do such things at work, or that they are
happy keeping their Free Software activities at "hobby" level), or even a lack
of enthusiasm ("I'm done with this, so why should anyone else be interested in
it now?"). I've seen all of these.
Making (3) happen is seemingly straightforward: just pay someone! But it has
complications all by itself, as we see with all the different schemes that are
concocted to find money and then to give it out fairly to people who
supposedly did the work. But I also feel that (4) has a complicating influence
as well. If the person who could do the work doesn't want to (or cannot), and
yet cannot empower someone else so that they may do it, either, then the
difficulties suddenly become much more severe.
Then again, this is a discussion list and I don't have all the answers ready,
so maybe other people can bring their insights to bear on these problems.
Paul
[1] https://reuse.software/
[2] https://www.gnu.org/
[3] https://www.gnu.org/help/
[4] https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
[5]
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/gnu-pdf-project-leaves-high-priority-projects-list-mission-complete
[6]
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/a-preliminary-analysis-of-high-priority-projects-feedback
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF#Interactive_elements
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFA
[9]
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/poppler/poppler/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&search=forms
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
