- Strong arguments are
- - knowledge is free, and so should be methods and tools for teaching and
- learning.
- - students can learn with and use the same software at school, at home, and
- at their
- working place without running into license or conversion problems.
- - closed source or proprietary software hides knowledge rather than exposing
- it, and
- proprietary software vendors try to bind customers to certain products.
- But
- teachers need to teach science, not products.
- - If you have everything you for daily work as open source, what would you
- need
- proprietary software for?
-
- > > * Who should be interviewed with this questions in the future?
-
- An interesting problem is perspective of the industry vs. perspective of
- educational institutions. A common problem seems to me that schools claim
- to "HAVE to use proprietary software", because employers and industry
- would "require this". The industry on the other hand claims to "HAVE to use
- proprietary software" because that's "what students learn at school".
-
- Interesting interview partners could be those companies who will hire
- students after their graduation, in order to show that there is an
- actual demand of skilled GNU/Linux users and experts in the industry.
+<p>Strong arguments are
+
+<li>
+
+ <li>knowledge is free, and so should be methods and tools for
+ teaching and learning.</li>
+
+ <li>students can learn with and use the same software at school, at
+ home, and at their working place without running into license or
+ conversion problems.</li>
+
+ <li>closed source or proprietary software hides knowledge rather
+ than exposing it, and proprietary software vendors try to bind
+ customers to certain products. But teachers need to teach
+ science, not products.</li>
+
+ <li>If you have everything you for daily work as open source, what
+ would you need proprietary software for?</li>
+
+</li>