|| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:31:49 +0100 (CET) || "Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
xdf> To reject an extension to a free software program is trying to xdf> make it non free.
No. Freedom includes also the freedom to not want something.
Many of the best Free Software projects are good because they have avoided feature bloat -- in other words have declined extensions.
Sure. That's why I added "You may simply not install it on your systems.". you are free to choose the features of the free software you develop and are even free to choose the features of non free software you develop (no offense intended). That's obvious. Software patents prevent this but this is another story.
Additionally you are free to remove features from free software (non-free software does not enjoy this advantage), because you are free to develop versions of it. But you can't choose for others what features go in their versions of any free program. That's what I meant.
If you could reject what features other people put in their versions of a program, then the program would not be free. Freedom menas you can take your choices and others can too.
If I reject feature Z in free program A this is irrelevant to anyone else (as it should be). Except when everyone gets their program from me to save themselves the trouble of adding or removing features. But when I reject feature Z in program A and people want it, then someone else may offer a version of program A with feature Z included. If someone couldn't then A wouldn't be free software (only recipients of the software get the freedom, not the whole world, but let's not make it unnecessarily complicated).
So I don't think calling that "I reject feature Z in program A" is very meaningful in free software.
I don't think we should expect to change MS policy, so if they pay for ODF->OXML conversion and make it available as free software, it will be available (assuming it can be programmed which everyone seems to think it can). Once it is available freedom allows you to choose whether to take it in your version of OOo or not. Freedom allows you to distribute OOo without ODF->OXML export, but it does not allow you to prevent MS, Novell or the Pope to distribute OOo with OXML export.
If you convince the OOo team of not including it then people who want it will simply get it from Novell, MS or the Pope. You can make it slightly more expensive for them to mantain their version, that's all. And you risk losing users which would defeat your purpose.
But you could also convince the OOo team of accepting the contribution after changing it to try to educate the user, highlight problems as they appear, etc. Give warnings and title them "consumer information notice", link them to the SELF project resources, highlight features in OOo not present in OXML, highlkight bloat in OXML not present in ODF, give additional warnings if the user tries to send it by email, even include a text in the converted document warning of its inability to work and the way to obtain an ISO 26300 or PDF/A version (as far as posible, you could ask the user the necessary info about where it will be stored or published), etc.
Then, if you manage to get the information accross, to convince users that information is useful and not make it too much of a nuisance. Then maybe users will prefer this version than the MS, Novell or catholic OOo. And maybe we get something out of it.
It can also be decided than even thus this feature is bloat and OOo is better without it. It's less code, less maintenance, likely less requirements... You could even try to educate users without including the feature. I don't know which is best. But I know that you can't decide this feature won't be available to users. you can only decide it won't be in the official OOo version (if you convince them).