codec buddy, fluendo, etc.
luis at tieguy.org
Mon Feb 11 22:38:18 UTC 2008
On Feb 11, 2008 4:53 PM, Graeme Hilton <graeme at fishter.org.uk> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2008 2:58 PM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Such open data does
> >> not need to be created using open tools, though of course that is
> >> preferable.
> > I'm trying to think of a case where one can create open data, but only
> > with proprietary tools, and failing- I must be missing something
> > obvious, though.
> where you
> thinking of a situation where there /is/ no free software that can be
> used to produce the data?
That's what I was thinking, because that's the only way I could make
sense of the original sentence in Jeff's email. The full quote:
"... it must be demonstratable that open content can be created for
consumption by the code in question. Such open data does not need to
be created using open tools, though of course that is preferable."
I was thinking that 'demonstratable that open content can be created'
was sufficient, and the second sentence therefore was redundant, since
under no conditions that I could think of can you demonstrate the
creation of open content only with proprietary tools.
More information about the fedora-advisory-board