MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | Richard Stallman
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [fairuse] Re: [hangout] Re: [Marketing] Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and EU
|
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.
Ruben posted the stated goals of the conference:
Goals: 1.the presentation of best practices 2.raising awareness
3.sharing of experiences among policy makers, donors, users/consumers,
universities, and industry specialists in Open Source, e-Government and
related fields.
This description does not describe an academic conference; it
describes promotion of "open source". Microsoft's participation makes
the conference false to its goals.
If the organizers of this event want to hold an academic conference
that studies the field without taking any side, that is
legitimate--but if that is what they are doing, they should do it
consistently. They should focus on presentation of peer-reviewed
papers. Then nobody will mistake it for an event to promote free
software or open source, it won't occupy the niche for such an event,
it won't siphon away energy and misdirect people who want to do
advocacy. Nobody would want to protest an honest-to-goodness academic
conference. Someone else could then organize another distinct event
to advocate free software and open source to governments.
Right now, this event pretends to be that, and gets in the way of
doing that fully and properly. It invites people to support it as a
form of advocacy (as many messages in this thread show) while not
being sincere and strong in that advocacy. When it fails to walk the
walk, it claims that it has a completely different goal, academic
neutrality. You can't do real advocacy by being neutral. That is why
there will be a protest.
I am against censorship, even of Microsoft, but that doesn't mean we
are invited to let them speak in our events. Microsoft has plenty of
platforms to promote its views, and so do its paid puppets such as the
Alexis de Toqueville Institute. It is not entitled to share our
platforms too--and conversely, an event that gives Microsoft a
platform to pretend that "shared source" is part of our community is
not an event that truly supports our community.
If people accept the idea that a "balanced" academic conference is
what passes for advocacy in our community, we will always be under a
handicap. Telling people in our community that proper advocacy means
giving Microsoft a platform is like teaching soldiers to always let
the enemy attack first.
Perhaps it would make sense to give a Democrat a chance to speak at
the Republican Convention and vice versa. In any case, that would not
be unfair (except to the Greens). To do it just one direction would
be absurd, and that is effectively what's happening here.
Microsoft would surely like to convince every major event in our
community to adopt a "balanced" rather than an advocacy position.
That would more or less abolish our community's advocacy. Perhaps
this event should ask Microsoft to a quid-pro-quo: to let a free
software advocate speak at the main Microsoft e-government event.
That would be fair, but Microsoft surely won't agree. It is only our
advocacy that they wish to abolish, not theirs.
Our community must refuse to let this event pass for real advocacy.
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
