MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-08 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: [fairuse] Re: E-Gov-OS conference
|
On 2003.02.08 21:06 Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> Reuben,
It's Ruben - with no E
>
> People who promote Freedom would allow everyone a chance to speak.
> It's a totalitarian tactic to silence the opposing view.
This is nonsense. This event is not a political afair. It's, in fact,
a private event open to the public, and if 1000 'stop the war' protesters
showed up, you would be in your absolute moral, ethical and legal right to
toss them right out.
Further, this is not a potical even. If this was NOT Microsoft asking,
they would never have gotten in. And even a POLITICAL event does not
require equal time. They can say anything they want, as long as it isn't
on my time. They are not a citizen of the Free Software and Open Source community
and they have no more right to speak, even while promoting Freedom, then the
Klu Klux Klan. They have to meet certain minimum requirements to speak.
They fail to meet those requirement. This private event has limited resources to
make its case to the public and to its target audience. Not a second of that precious
resource can be afforded to a convicted criminal entity whos stated goal is to end
Free Software.
So saying, "People who promote Freedom would allow everyone a chance to speak." is a
huge red herring. If I was running the Government, Yeah. If I was dealing with a
participant of the Free Software movenment...sure if I can.
But never ever a swore enemy of the community. They do not deserve the oppurtunity
to make a case against Free Software in any way at any event involved with the promotion
of Free Software (or Open Source Software). If they want a debate, NY Fair Use will sponsor one.
We can set it up for March (asuming Richard can make it then), and then we can open the floor to them.
>
> In a conference with over 100 talks, predominantly from friends of Free
> Software,
It's not supposed to 'Predominantly', it's supposed to be ALL Free Software and
Open Sorce advocates. Certainly we can not give the floor to someone who John Hall
makes the strong argument to jail for their convicted antitrust conviction.
> to simply not allow Microsoft to have their say at all would
> be to brand ourselves as enemies of free speech,
Of course not. Nobody thinks that. Nobody would think that. And frankly, it would make us look good when
people see we actually stand for something, like honestly, freedom to innovate, and not-cohabitating with
a morally deprived convicted business.
> 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.
Putting Microsoft on the show is a violation of trust with the Free Software
Community and is a violation of the most basic of Free Software ethos.
It is not the other way around.
> 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.
What does this story have to do with what we're talking about? When I was with Richard in
DC, we crashed the DRM party, and we DID gain sympathy, as a matter of fact, and we closed,
for all pratical purposes, the DOC as a channel for DRM. Now granted, I was there and packed
the audience, and I also controlled our crowd, which gave us a chance to present Richard in the
best possible light. But this is not about any of this. This is about do we give precious
time for marketing Free Software to known crooks who are sworn to destroy Free Software.
The answer to that is NO. If it happens, there will be a boycott and likely demonstrations
against the organizers.
> 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.
You've never seen me in action in front of a crowd ... I am not Richard. But you can ask my
orgnaization about my ability to lead in this situation, and to work a crowd and control the course
of events. If I haze you from the Peanut gallery, nobody will be running out in tears, but we will make
enemies. But that's alright, as long as they are the enemies you choose to make.
Microsoft is an enemy, not because we chose them, but because they chose us. And AGAIN, non of this has
anything to do with the issue at hand.
>
> 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.
That would NOT be correct. Sometimes it is appropriate, and sometimes it is not. If this happens or not
is really up to those who run this event. If you continue to give resources and cover for MS at this event,
we will boycott the event, and we will look at other possible actions to expose the organizers. I'm not going
to quitely allow Microsoft to muscle in on ever Free Software event from this point forward because of bad decisions
being made by Tony Stanco in my name, or in the name of Free Software. We are not going to allow it with IDG anymore,
or anyone else. Microsoft is going to have to find a different way to market its lies.
>
> 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.
Actually, I'm not making these claims out of ignorance. Tony has directly worked
against the Free Software movement for his betterment. And I didn't say he took a bride.
I said he took a payoff. It either involved funding or some other selfish benifit for
himself. And Tony does not put in more hours than I do in this. And I'm not out there
trying to secure my position with a University. I simply respresent every day users
of Free Software and my obligation is completely to them. Tony can't say this. And
since he did something so damaging to the Community in this matters, it could only be for
a selfish purpose.
>
> 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.
As a matter of fact, the GNUE people who I don't represent, did ask to speak. They were rejected.
I will not submit a paper. Your welcome to choose any of the dozens I alreay have published,
including the one I just sent out this evening....which is probibly the one I would use
I'm only making this request because I doubt anyone would have the integrety with this event
to boot Microsoft off the panel.
And for the record, both David and I would do a better job than anyone on the panel.
It's up to your organization. But I find it humerous that assuring Microsoft's rights
is protecting Freedom, but ignoring our request, or pigeonholing it for beruacratic
reasons is justifiable. I must say, that the reputation of organizers of this event
is being closely judged at this junction in NY.
I would be most effective with the Keynote. It needs a leathal, no holds bar on the
attack of Free Software and the dangers of this to individuals and the government, especially
in light of giving Microsoft such a high profile at this event.
Yours Truly
Dr Ruben I Safir
--
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
1-718-382-0585
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
