Stallman

Sudhakar has a link to a post by Richard Stallman that illustrates just how paranoid Stallman is of Microsoft. It is quite amusing:

    A MSA who was pestering me for a DotNET session at GLUG-Madurai
    argued that DotNET being an Open Standard, I should not object him
    promoting it in the GLUG.

When he said this, he was taking advantage of a broader
misunderstanding.  The idea of GNU/Linux is to be free software;
"open standard", even if that is true, is not good enough if the
software itself is non-free.

So it looks like we need to educate all GLUGs (and LUGs, if they will
listen) to recognize and teac that people should not promote non-free
software--regardless of the details.

By the way, Microsoft is deceiving people when they say this is an
"open standard", since in the US they are trying to patent some
aspects of it.  It could be useful to bring that up and expose it.

    The lesson that I learn from these people is to outrightly reject
    their requests. They are not worth the trouble.

We should always refuse to give developers of non-free software a
platform to speak.  However, saying that this is "not worth the
trouble" is misleading, because it is implies there is some potential
good to be achieved--if only it were easier to do.

What they are doing is bad, pure and simple.  There is no good in it.

    M$ through its Micro$oft Student Ambassadors
    is doing a large scale mobilisation in colleges amongst the
    student community. They wrap their stuff under labels such as "M$s
    Open Source venture", "Open Technology", etc.. They are forming
    student groups in colleges.

>From what you are saying, it sounds like they are starting phony "open
source" groups.  Can you find any specific statements that you can
quote?  We could embarrass them badly by documenting this, but we need
specific quotes, specific proof.

If you could go to a meeting where they try to recruit new people, and
make a recording so that you can quote them exactly, that would be
useful too.

Once we have solid proof, we could use various methods to organize
against them.

1. Make handouts denouncing them as a fraud.  Whenever they have an
event, a few of you can stand near the door and hand out copies to
whoever is attending.  In effect, stage a quiet and simple protest
against each of their meetings, accusing them of lying.

2. Recruit a couple of people to pretend to be interested in joining,
go to the meeting, and speak up within it to identify the lies.

3. Write articles for student newspapers about the deception.

4. Treat the MSA program and its representatives as liars.
Don't treat them as respectable or legitimate.

5. Call on the university to close the program down for lying.  Even
if this campaign does not succeed, it will generate public awareness
that will be useful in all ways.  So renew the campaign each year!

[1] http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2004-October/002484.html

6 Comments

  • Moderation check.



    I don't object to moderation, I just want to know if I'm running the risk of sinking a bunch of time into a comment only to have it shot down with no record. (Which seems like it might have happened once already on a post I made to Sudhakar's blog)

  • "by Richard Stallman that illustrates just how paranoid Stallman is of Microsoft."



    Stallman should be paranoid of Microsoft. Microsoft, since Altair BASIC, represents the absolute opposite of what he strives for and values in software. Microsoft has also done an incredible job of promoting its system of values, and looks like it's getting even stronger. There's a lot of legitmate fear that between patents, legal challenges to the GPL and Linux, and efforts like NGSCB (nee Palladium) Microsoft will be able to shut down the potential for open source software to exist at all as a viable and mainstream competitor.



    Now, maybe it's arguable that this kind of thing is 'tinfoil' hat thinking and totally unreasoanble, but given Microsoft's amazing ability to deal with challenges from Unix, IBM, The Justice Department, the FTC, Apple, Lotus, WordPerfect, etc. I think some paranoia is justified.



    I think that a major part of the schism between the open source and closed source communities is nicely encapculated by Sudhakar in this quote from his blog post: "And when it comes to the point of pricing...how free is linux? well you might want to read this case study/Report, if you are not treating Forrester as a liar."



    That _totally_ misses the point. We're not in an Orwell novel, we're not speaking Newspeak, and the word free still has more than one definition.



    Free software isn't about "free of charge", that's the role of closed source freeware. Free software is about the freedom to freely share, use, modify, and understand software. The free of charge part (and lower TCO part) is completely incidental to the liberties implied by free (in Stallman's sense) software.



    Now, if you really want to talk TCO, I think that an unfettered Linux is destined to far surpass closed source software in terms of cost of ownership. It's just simple economics: the US economy, with it's world-leading efficiency is a __free__ market economy based on choice and customer power. These are the same values that a vibrant open source software community can support and the centrally planned (all from Microsoft, IBM, etc.) software community can't.

  • " is destined to far surpass closed source software in terms of cost of ownership"



    surpass == lower cost of ownership. ;-)

  • mschaef - my problem with 'free' software is that there is no freedom of choice. What about people being free to chose their own licenses? People being free to keep their code to themselves?

  • ward no 7 street no 14 mohala ansaria near mosque ansaria jhang city pakistan

  • 250588.. Great! :)

Comments have been disabled for this content.