MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-09 |
| FROM | Russell McOrmond
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Re: Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the
|
On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Ruben I Safir wrote:
> A- Marketing to the Government Free Software is already a difficult
> task, and the focus of the benifits of free digital systems for the
> government should be the only focus of the conference. There is no
> justification to give Microsoft a platform for marketing against free
> software.
If we define and control the language, then Microsoft's own words will
hang them.
I am glad that the FSF awarded Lessig fifth annual FSF Award for the
Advancement of Free Software. In his writings he suggests that "code is
law" in cyberspace.
If you are like me and subscribe to this way of thinking, then access to
information laws, government accountability, and other related laws which
we recognize make a democracy function start to look very similar to the
FSF definition of Free Software, and the OSI definition of Open Source.
Having a Microsoft representative speak at a free/libre and open source
software conference will eventually be understood as absurd as having a
representative of a totalitarian regime speak against democracy at a
conference on "improving accountability and accessibility of democratic
government representatives".
It should not be up to us to exclude Microsoft as Microsoft is then seen
as the good guy. It is a matter of us continuously setting the stage such
that Microsoft eventually recognizes it harms their message to show up.
> B- The warning lable would not be strong enough to overcome the
> Microsoft PR machine.
Microsoft's own internal memos (if you believe the Halloween documents)
are telling them that they are loosing the PR battle on Shared Source.
Whether we win this war is a matter of how well we are able to deliver our
message, not up to what Microsoft will say.
It is also critical how we say it. Aggressively boycotting events and
suggesting that "Microsoft is too powerful, that they will win a debate if
they are given a chance to speak" is granting them far more than they
deserve. Having a debate between calm, polished, PR representatives and
some of the more emotionally charged members of our community (I would put
myself here, but more well known is RMS himself) is also not the right way
to do it.
I hope that rather than shouting and waving placards that you and
supporters will have a well written pamphlet to hand to everyone entering
the event. Send copies of a short summary of the pamphlet as a letter to
the editor of all the media you can before the event.
Please send me copies to distribute here in Canada. I expect similar
events will be hosted here where we will have an opportunity to better
educate people on Patents/NDA/etc vs FLOSS.
Note: I will not be attending the March event since I have boycott all
travel to the USA since summer 2001 due to the DMCA.
> These guys would starve free software developers and users to death, and
> not think twice.
This isn't a real-life version of the movie "Anti-Trust". This can
easily be turned into an opportunity to set the stage for a Microsoft
representative speaking and wishing they had never shown up.
Please turn your energy into ensuring that this happens. The eGovOS
conference will go on, and media will hopefully report about it. It would
be ideal that if instead of a confusing distraction that a
well-articulated message was brought forward by those who recognize Shared
Source (or any source code under NDA) to be a considerable problem.
The conference does have people speaking about software patents, and
ideal would be if NDA's also became a theme mentioned in many of the
presentations.
---
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....
|
|
