Blu-ray quality with free formats

[Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild]

On 08/01/14 10:48, Mirko Boehm wrote:
> On 07.01.2014 19:54, Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild wrote:
>> On 07/01/14 18:48, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
>>> >"Filip M. Nowak"<fsfe at oneiroi.net>  writes:
>>>> >>Well, looks like it is (but it's not compatible with GPL):
>>> >
>>> >It is free software but is it a free format?
>> Is C++ source code a free format?

> And we need to fix natural language to be free of inconsistencies and
> misunderstandings :-)

Oh no! That's why the C++ standards committee invented undefined behaviour.

In any case, the point of my rhetoric question was that there is no
point in squabbling over LaTeX like that. If you use TeX to produce
nicely typeset PDF-s, nobody cares whether you use LaTeX, XeTeX, MiTeX
or whatever. The resulting PDF most likely conforms to Open Standards
and the PDF is something you are going to distribute widely.

Choosing the TeX flavour is like choosing a programming language: if you
want to write your own language, go for it; if you want to use C++, do
it; if you want to use Fortran, do it. But when you compile your
program, please provide the binaries for the platform the software is
intended for (and obviously make sure that a free compiler
implementation is available).

There are a few cases where you need to agree on a TeX version with your
published or co-authors, but those cases are akin to picking a
programming language for a project with friends – C++, C, Scheme, and a
good few other languages are standardised, but I have yet to see someone
pick one of them for the quality of being standardised.


-- 
Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild
FSFE Fellowship Representative
mailto:repentinus at fsfe.org
xmpp:repentinus at jabber.fsfe.org
http://blogs.fsfe.org/repentinus/