Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to be honest. On Apr 17, 2012 1:18 PM, "Thomas Dalton" <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> 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 line with our > > existing policies. > > > > Open source tools exist, but let's be pragmatic about the inherent > > cost of attempting to use them if they are not widely accepted in the > > sector. > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
