MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-08 |
| FROM | bruce@perens.com (Bruce Perens)
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: [fairuse] Re: E-Gov-OS conference
|
Reuben,
People who promote Freedom would allow everyone a chance to speak.
It's a totalitarian tactic to silence the opposing view.
In a conference with over 100 talks, predominantly from friends of Free
Software, to simply not allow Microsoft to have their say at all would
be to brand ourselves as enemies of free speech, and to destroy our
own credibility by putting on an exclusively one-sided program. This
would absolutely not be in keeping with the ethos of the Free Software
movement. I remain concerned that your efforts to protect others from
hearing Microsoft's distorted version of reality will do the Free Software
movement damage while promoting Microsoft's cause.
I've been a witness to this sort of thing before. Richard Stallman and I
spoke at the CODE conference in Cambridge England a few years ago. Richard
was given an hour, I think, for his speech. Sometime afterward, there was
a panel including myself and several other speakers. One of the speakers
said something mildly sympathetic to the patent system, and Richard,
in the audience, lost control and started shouting at the fellow. It was
clear that Richard did _not_ gain the sympathy of the audience, and in
fact blew whatever credibility he had built during his own talk. After
getting the program back on its feet as best I could, which involved
Richard storming out of the room in offense, I caught him outside.
Richard was in tears because it was clear that he hadn't gotten his
message across by shouting from the audience, and had indeed hurt his
own argument. This is exactly the sort of behavior I see you heading
towards - perhaps minus the tears.
A year afterward, at another forum in Washington D.C., I sat next to
Richard for half a day day just to help him keep control while the bad
folks spoke, and to ask calm questions in his stead. He would have lost
it again, and lost his credibility a second time, had he confronted the
speakers directly - and he pointed that out afterward.
The bottom line is that we gain nothing by sounding shrill. And the sort
of tactics you're considering would do that.
You accused Tony Stanco of taking a bribe in order to include
Microsoft in the conference. Or if he didn't take a bribe, you say he's
doing that for "self promotion". I don't see what self-promoting effect
Microsoft's presence would have. I also don't see that there would have
been a need for a bribe to get MS on a speaking program. It's
self-destructive of our movement, for you to have made that suggestion when
you know full well that Tony puts in many hours to promote Free Software,
and has spoken internationally as a representative of FSF.
Regarding giving you a talk and David Sugar the keynote, or vice versa.
In the track where Matusow speaks, we have Mike Tiemann, Whitfield Diffie,
and about 10 other folks who will make it clear that they don't buy
the Microsoft line. I have to ask: Did you folks submit any papers? I
submitted one and got it accepted. And I am reading down the list of
speakers now, and it's a veritable Who's Who of people who promote Free
Software in government. You may not know many of these people, but I
have been working with many of them in various government presentations
and I can vouch for them. I think that you and David could take your
place among the fifty or so Free Software evangelists who are speaking
and do a credible job. I don't see that you are offering more than they
do. I may still be able to get you included in the program, but I don't
see that it will make a very big difference over the folks who are
already there. Don't ask for the keynote - that's not for either you or
Microsoft.
Thanks
Bruce
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
