MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-08 |
| FROM | Russell McOrmond
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the U.S.
|
(Sorry for the large Cc - just replying to the same place others have)
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Tony is not "on the take". Tony wants to run this conference as an
> academic conference, giving all sides (including the opposition) a
> chance to speak. Neither he or I are under any illusion that "shared
> source" is Free Software in any sense.
In an academic conference where one invites the opposition to the theme
of the conference, is it not customary to make this clear? I suspect much
of the controversy would not be happening of the conference organizers
provided adequate labeling of those presenting in opposition to the
theme of the conference.
If someone was hosting a conference on "Government protection of the
global environment: focus on climate change" and global climate change
denier were to be invited, it would be easy enough to determine that their
views are incompatible with those of the majority at the conference.
There is nothing in the description of Microsoft's presentation that
clearly notes that Microsoft is there to discuss a topic in extreme
opposition to free/libre and open source software. License issues are
very confusing except for those 'already in the know', and people who are
already knowledgeable on a topic shouldn't be assumed to be the only
audience for a conference.
The conference should do the best it can to have people leave more
informed, not less informed (or more confused) than before they attended
any given talk.
I happen to believe that people should go to this conference and not
boycott it. I also believe that the organizers have a responsibility to
adequately label controversial/contradictory presentations so that people
won't be confused into thinking that what they are presenting on is
compatible with the main theme of the conference.
> Few reporters go to a conference, hear one person talk, and conclude
> that everyone else agrees with them. The LWE Expo got press
> because they gave Microsoft a prize (?!); I know of no plans to give
> prizes to anyone.
GNU/Linux is just an operating system. While this operating system is
itself free software, you can run both free and non-free software on it.
A Linux conference is not a Free Software or Open Source conference.
The March event has the title "Open Source for National and Local
eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU". I believe most of us are
assuming that the use of the term Open Source is as defined by the OSI at
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Software or topics that do not meet the definition of the words in the
title of the conference should be labeled as such. This seems like a
pretty simple thing to do to avoid the negativity that will otherwise
become a distraction around this event.
> Please, contact Tony directly! His email address:
> stanco-at-seas.gwu.edu
I am copying him in the extreme hopes that he will take the advise and
label presentations adequately so that the event will not be the source of
further license confusion! Source code under NDA (and thus much of
controversial Shared Source initiative from Microsoft) is simply the
polar-opposite of free/libre and open source software. Conference
attendees should leave the conference understanding this well.
Lets use this as an opportunity to clarify license issues through
adequate labeling, not cloud an already complex issue.
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant:
Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen
and not a third party. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
