MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Status
|
That's the question.
IF the point of the conference is Open Source Software in Government
*advocacy*, then there is no need for the inclusion of a Microsoft
representative on any sort of panel or discussion. They have nothing to
do with OSS. Anyone is free to ask about their "Shared Source"
initiative but they wouldn't be presenting it on the schedule.
That brings me back to your suspicions. Maybe someone involved in the
conference is ignorant or naive, and thinks it would be clever to have
MS in the lineup. Think of the press it would generate! And there's no
way they could come out looking good with all of those penetrating
questions they'll be asked. Right? What could they possibly do or say?
There are other possible explanations. The conference could be a good
opportunity to raise someone's profile in the area of national/regional
politics. I have to admit that anyone who offers a cliche about
"arguments are like burning gold" to a media outlet sounds more than a
little "camera ready". Someone suggested that there are organizations
sponsoring the event who are pressuring the organizers to include MS.
Who would that be? Sun Microsystems? IBM? The University? Pardon my
ignorance, but why get behind a conference with the words "Open Source
in Government" in the title if you don't approve of the subject? Is
Microsoft a sponsor? That might explain things.
I just have to wonder why people are picking needless fights when the
purpose of the gathering is to advocate and discuss OSS in government.
Who thought that was a good idea, and why? Isn't it enough to let MS be
the bully?
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 18:13, Ruben I Safir wrote:
> Of course it is advocacy...otherwise, what's the point
>
>
> On 2003.02.10 18:10 Dave Williams wrote:
> >
> > As far as I can tell, any decision about how to proceed regarding the
> > EGovOS conference hinges on one thing.
> >
> > Dr. Stallman expressed it best: Either the conference is advocacy, in
> > which case Microsoft should be excluded, or it is an academic dialog, in
> > which case the term "Open Source" should probably be removed from the
> > title (in favor of something like "Comparative Source Code Licensing
> > Schemes in Government" or something similar).
> >
> > Mr. Perens is welcome to attach the Open Source title to the meeting, of
> > course. And Mr. Safir is welcome to organize a protest to draw
> > attention to the issue of Shared Source as a perversion of Free
> > Software's ideals. Whether this turns out to be harmful or helpful
> > remains to be seen.
> >
> > My question is: Which is it? Advocacy or Academia?
> >
> > The sources I've read indicate advocacy, or at least a series of
> > discussions and presentations limited to the subject of Open Source
> > Software in Government. But I could be mistaken. Is anyone out there
> > qualified to answer this? I think it would settle the matter once and
> > for all and allow people to go ahead with their plans.
> >
> > - Dave
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
