John, On Sunday 15 October 2006 22:08, John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 15 October 2006 20:58, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Point taken. However, the answer to his question is then obvious and trivial (as another pointed out) use M$ windoze and a commercial copy of Adobe. End of story.
Hardly. It's not reasonable to expect someone with a valid publishing need that includes some sort of access control to go to a commercial OS or commercial software to fulfill those needs.
Why is that not reasonable?
Why _is_ it reasonable? Are you suggesting that if someone is carrying out commercial, profit-generating activities they should not use free (open or otherwise) software? Do you have any idea how much OSS software Amazon uses? Boatloads. Do you think that's inappropriate? Immoral? Illegal? That is _should_ be illegal?
He is clearly trying to protect his material, probably to protect a commercial interest in the material. Why should a commercial need not be met with commercial software?
That inference is not supported by what the OP asked. For all we know, he wants to plan a surprise party for his spouse. But the examples suggested by M. Fiori (in a separate thread) are very serious (and non-commercial) reasons to be able to control access to information. Information may want to be free, but people have very reasonable and legitimate reasons to want to control and limit access to some of that information. I continue to assert that software and materials produced with that software are not always to be considered equivalent in their need to be protected.
...
Randall Schulz