MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-13 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Quotes
|
Here are the quotes provided by Tony Stancy, in chronological order:
"Microsoft thinks I'm too sympathetic to Free Software and tries to
discredit me to the government on that basis. Now, it seems that Free
Software wants to discredit me, because I am perceived as too
sympathetic to Microsoft. I guess if I am upsetting both extremes
equally, I must be being perceived somewhere near the middle by most
people, which is the right place for someone in my position to be."
(NewsForge #1)
"I heard from Microsoft yesterday on the chatter over their appearing at
our Open Source in Government conference and they quickly proposed that
they be uninvited." (NewsForge #2)
"What the loons on the extreme of the extreme don't understand is that
Microsoft would love to have an excuse to not attend. Microsoft is not
coming because it wants to. It is coming because it is compelled to.
It's Microsoft's government customers who want them there to explain
themselves in public when they say that Shared Source is better than
Open Source, instead of just talking that way in private. And it is the
government that wants them to do it in front of Open Source supporters,
so that they can hear both sides at the same time. Instead of trying to
throw Microsoft out, we should be asking that they do more and present
their very best. And then have our best, say Eben Moglen or Bruce
Perens, debate whomever they put forward as their champion." (NewsForge
#2)
"But Stanco, also a veteran free software advocate, says he had no
outside pressure to put Microsoft on the agenda. In fact, Stanco met a
Microsoft representative at an open source conference in Jordan in
December, and Stanco asked Microsoft to be part of the next Washington
event." (from PCWorld)
Microsoft said in the filing that the popularization of the open-source
movement continues to pose a significant challenge to its business
model. This threat includes "recent efforts by proponents of the open
source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of
open source software in their purchase and deployment of software
products. To the extent the open source model gains increasing market
acceptance, sales of the company's products may decline, the company may
have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and
operating margins may consequently decline," it said. (Microsoft's SEC
filing, from eWeek)
So if I'm reading these articles correctly Dr. Stallman, we go from Tony
wanting to be balanced and fair, to Microsoft being forced to
participate and Tony being pressured by government bureaucrats ("Test
them for us Tony, please!"), to Tony cozying up to Microsoft people and
wanting them to participate because he likes them. But the last
paragraph is probably the most succinct description of Microsoft's
motives. They want to attend, and they want to be everywhere the words
"Open Source" are listed. Why? Because it is an enemy of their
business model, and if it becomes a requirement of Federal contracting
they will be in very bad shape indeed.
Which I think is precisely why they shouldn't be allowed to muddy the
waters or confuse people. Let someone else put on a debate, preferably
Microsoft. It's their fight to lose. I see too many people responding
to these events with an "OS rocks! We'll blow them away!" attitude.
Not only is that beside the point, I think it's dangerously foolish.
Bruce offered a Q&A session with Matusow as a small gesture of
goodwill. I don't remember a debate being on the schedule, and if there
was why the Q&A? Many of the speakers are not required to defend their
positions, so the whole notion of public debate is questionable.
I do have a proposal though: In the interest of fairness, we could
produce a small handbill. It will be printed in the languages of every
conference attendee, and will be handed out to compensate for the lack
of Microsoft participation. On it will be a brief summary of their
positions. For example:
1. Jason Matusow: Shared Source is good. Open Source is bad.
2. "Software Choice": Governments shouldn't be required to use Open
Source software. OSS should have to compete against closed products.
(When the word "compete" is spoken, be sure to giggle and poke your
neighbor.)
Now everybody can be happy, and we have a win-win situation.
- Dave
On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 05:08, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Mr. Stanco claims that both Microsoft and the Feds pressured him into
> including presentations by Matusow and the "Software Choice" people.
>
> Can you find me a reference or a message where he said that?
> I want to be able to quote it!
>
> I remember that he told me privately that people pressured him
> into suppressing the free software activism, and I think I remember
> that he said they pressured for "Microsoft presence", but I am not
> certain about the latter memory. It would be very good if I had
> a statement I could cite as basis for this.
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
