MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-15 |
| FROM | Marco Scoffier
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: [fairuse] Re: a proposed solution
|
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:05:52AM +0000, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
> What I think he is talking about goes far beyond mere criticism. It sounds
> to me like he is talking about bringing hundreds of people to the
> conference to prevent the speakers from speaking and prevent people from
> attending, or at least to make the attendees go through a gauntlet of
> angry, shouting demonstrators.
You are wrong.
> That's what it sounds like to me. I would like to hear otherwise, but that
> is not what the rhetoric implies.
>
Rhetoric is the art of knowing how to produce many different effects in
your audience. Ruben seems to have gotten under your skin. This is good.
He created an issue. You have been questioning or at least thinking
about Microsoft attending this conference all week, also good.
Complacency is the Free Software movement's greatest weakness
and greatest threat right now.
We are enemy number one. No one else has ever survived.
The threats to Free Software are many and varied. Jobs are vital. As
is greater public understanding of the issues. Microsoft's presence at
any presentation of free software will always cloud the issues.
Microsoft has historically latched onto any strength of the enemy and
turned it into a meaningless buzz-word: "Innovation" last year, this
year "Empowerment". They will steal the arguement. People who
understand the issues surrounding Free Software understand that "Shared
Source" is a threat. You have the technical knowledge to laugh when
Microsoft uses these words but most people don't have the background to
parse these messages, seems to make sense to them. [1]
You do not invite a fascist dictator to a convention about best
democratic practices. Especially if you are in a country where that
fascist dictator has overwhelming influence and control. The presence
of Microsoft can only be seen as a detriment to the ends of this
conference as presented on its web site. A fascist dictator will always
be more efficient and seem simpler than boisterous heterogenious
democracy. Without a viceral reaction, democracy stands no chance.
Many of us have realized that we are in Microsoft's sights. The "Open
Source Product Excellence Awards" at Linux World this year should send
chills down the spine of anyone who understands the implications. [1]
Any act of censorship is a threat to free speech. This is radical and
necessary for free speech to mean anything. An omnipresent or mandated
closed source OS which limits the freedom of its users is a similar
threat to Free Software.
It is a dangerous situation when self-appointed expert middle men become
the point men for something as important as the acceptance or advocacy
of Free Software in the Government. Also dangerous is the Botox(TM)
America. Injecting poison in your forehead as a means to "seal the
deal" would be ok, _if_ you never give up your principles. The problem
is that we as human beings tend to show more emotion when something
challenges our most fundamental beliefs. Emotion is a primary vector
of human communication. Without an emotional component, no one has any
idea what you are thinking. Slickness and smoothness may be strengths
in Washington DC and Redmond Washington, but everywhere else it feels
sleazy.
Where are your principles Stanley? In your gut do you want to hear how
Microsoft tries to spin "Shared Source" as others try to present
Software Freedom?
Do you want to wait around for the next DMCA, TCPA, Palladium, or even
more pervasive uses of incompatible, patented illegal-monopoly-ware,
which only complacency or "dumbness of the masses" can explain. The
public, like their government officials, are dumb but visceral. Only a
clear message can light the fire which makes Free Software seem not only
preferable but absolutely necessary.
I am quite sure any protest would be pamphlets and buttons with colorful
slogans, perhaps some posters. But even with a couple hundred people
this would be far less effective than the clear message of not inviting
Microsoft at all.
--Marco
[1]"Open-source" became a meaningless buzzword when the Open Source
Product Excellence Award was given to a closed source Microsoft
application which undermines the Free Software movement, by allowing the
fruits of Free Software (the applications) to run without the core, the
OS. There is no real competition or freedom above the level of the OS,
like free markets. This is the fundamental message which must be
presented, and which Microsoft's presence will irreperably confuse.
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
