Milking The GNU

The FSF freed Software. What about the people who wrote it?

Milking The GNU is using Red Panda a new kind of (Free) News Browser for Firefox.
My Photo

About

Stay Tuned

  • Search about open source NEWS
  • SUBSCRIBE to this blog's feed

Quick Jump

  • Latest
  • Humor
  • Open source references
  • Patenting issues
  • FOSS Business models
  • Companies fighting the GPL
  • Liberty Bell
  • Milking open source
  • Miscellaneous

Good Readings

  • ZDNet Open Source
  • 451 CAOS Theory - open source
  • c|net Blogs: Matt Asay's
  • Linux Journal
  • Dirk Riehle's Software Research
  • Digital Majority
  • Linux.com
  • Building FOSS for Society
  • Law & Life: Silicon Valley
  • RedHat Truth happens
  • Open Source Law Blog
  • NonProfit Open Source Initiative
  • Scott Mace's
  • Ryan Tomayko's
  • Fabrizio Capobianco's
  • Ars Technica
  • Roy Schestowitz's Boycott Novell
  • Roberto Galopini
  • Groklaw
  • Jerome Boyer's agile archi.

Archives

  • November 2009
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008

MTG's secret weapon

Writing this blog I came to this conclusion that technology watch would be made much easier with specialized tools.

Since I wasn't satisfied with the various RSS readers or start pages I tried, I decided to write my own. You can now download Red Panda and try it for yourself. There is also a French version. And yes, at some point down the line it will be made open source :)

If search engines are so smart, why do they need an input field?

Posted at 03:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Milking the GNU will return soon


Offspring-x
In case some of you are wondering, MTG is going on a camping trip with his 6 y.o.
(coolest kid on the block).

We will be back early July w/ such subjects as companies buying open source, stealth crowd sourcing and the presentation of a serious Ubuntu competitor ...

Cheers,

MTG

Posted at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Why women don't FLOSS

Did you smile in reading this title? Maybe you did just like I did when I read Linus' post launching Linux for the first time:

Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote their own device drivers?

Hackers' culture is fun, right? No big deal either if French Linux Magazine has a tradition of offering a "Calendrier Debian" (a Debian calendar, commented here in Fr) to its readers at the end of the year. And yes there is a naked woman on it albeit not a full Playboy-style double page.

And yes, if it's not a biggie, then why fussing about it?

Imagine that you're a little person and a hacker. Imagine further that you've just released a great piece. Your server is stressed by the success, you're happy. Then a guy who noticed that 3 years ago you mentioned your size in a post on you personal blog decides to congratulate you and at the same time winks at you because you know, he made this tremendous effort of googling you and he wants you to notice; so here he goes, writing a post or a leaving a comment on the download page: You're a great man! :-)

How do you think you would feel if you were that hacker? The intention of a message never matters more than the effect it has on the recipient. And this smiley above: can you really stand it? Here is another example (see the comments) where developers defend ad nauseam the good intentions of one of their peers.

It often bugs me that the FOSS community is usually very careful not to make remarks -even funny ones- about the nationality of a contributor: anyone who tries will be usually promptly shut up. Yet, when it's a matter of joking about women, the same restrain simply doesn't apply. The difference might lie in the fact that FOSS nationalities are all over the world map.

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill:

Why you may take the most gallant team OS gurus, the most intrepid band of bug busters, and ONE audacious she-hacker, put them at a table together-and what do you get? The sum of all the males' sex biases.

It's not just a funny quote: FOSS is a universe almost exclusively male; in such universe, the sheer number makes sexism almost unavoidable, structural. One might argue that It has more to do with crowd effect than with personal ethos but this is hardly an excuse. Moreover, the numbers suggest that their must be a deeper reason.

Three weeks ago MTG published Why hackers FLOSS, the summary of a sociological study focusing on Hackers' motivations. One of the most troubling result didn't even raise a commenter eyebrow  yet it's a pretty astounding number: 97.5% of hackers are male.

Worth mentioning is that specialized literature shows at leisure that in most Western countries, women  are generally grossly under-represented in sciences and  computer sciences is no exception.  Gender-biased upbringing is to blame.

The most convincing demonstration might be the situation in Malaysia, the opposite situation in fact, where 65% of CS students are women. Mazliza Othman, head of the CS department at Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur, says: (from this article in French)

You see, civil engineering or even geology, these are things people see as being male. Unlike computer sciences. I don't see anything masculine in computer sciences!

She presents the following reasons: CS jobs are clean jobs and they don't require much physical force. It's a typical tertiary activity that can even be conducted while staying home!

What's interesting is that the arguments used are well, sexist. It shows that a gender bias can easily determine who is destined for a given profession, CS is in this case. Maybe Malaysian guys are sometimes accused of having a woman job; who knows, when people are gender-biased?

Yet, If 15-20% (28% in EU as of 2005) of women are computer pros, they should be represented by the same ratio in the FOSS community. Instead, they represent about 6% of Linux Users Groups in Europe and constitute about 1 to 1.5% (EU and US) of the developer population (i.e. as found on global FOSS repositories). More information and numbers here..

Why is the FOSS community more open to software than it is to women? Why are developers so proud to announce that their mother (or their girlfriend) has a sub-standard I.Q.? Indeed, why is Ubuntu so simple to use that even your mother could use it?.

The main problem is that of a confusion between intention and perception. We will develop this a little bit further. But before, let's indulge into a few numbers.


Pix-discrimination

From this EU report a key finding:

Women are actively (if unconsciously) excluded rather than passively disinterested. The effect lies within F/LOSS cultural and social arrangements. The exclusion happens among people who often do not mean to appear, and who do not interpret their own actions, as hostile to women. The effect is an outcome of the importance given to the individual as the sole carrier of agency.

It could also help if the scarcity of women would not systematically lead to companionship solicitation. And to the ladies out there, please try taking it with a pinch of salt: men find your brain sexy. That's a progress: objectifying code is a lot better than objectifying people.  ;-)

However, the extent of the problem is not funny: imagine that on a project with 1,000 contributors, 3% of them are lonely guys (and I'm really conservative). This means 30 different conversations where our she-hacker would have to explain that sorry, she already has a life thanks.

Pix - date women
From the same EU report, the answer to the question: Have you been asked for a date by a F/LOSS participant?

Deep blue: Yes, quite often
Light blue: Yes, but seldom.

Almost half of the women have been asked out. Not that the question does not even encompass casual flirting.


Still from the same study, this interesting finding about the time developers spent FLOSSing:

The reliance on long hours of intensive computing in writing successful code means that men, who in general assume that time outside of waged labour is ‘theirs’, are freer to participate than women, who normally still assume a disproportionate amount of domestic responsibilities. Female F/LOSS participants, however, seem to be able to allocate a disproportionate larger share of their leisure time for their F/LOSS activities. This gives an indication that women who are not able to spend as much time on voluntary activities have difficulties to integrate into the community.


A few other aspects are rarely mentioned in all of those studies about FOSS and women.

The first one is that since many Western countries have equal opportunities laws, it's difficult to measure what would be the prevalence of CS women in the absence of such laws. Therefore the amount of the observed gap between workplace and FOSS might be partially attributed to the lack of specific data.

The second one is a remark about the prevalence of Asperger syndrome within developers, the so-called geek syndrome. One of the most preeminent characteristics of Asperger is a certain inability to pick up on social clues. From a well publicized Wired article:

Nick's father is a software engineer, and his mother is a computer programmer. They've known that Nick was an unusual child for a long time. He's infatuated with fantasy novels, but he has a hard time reading people. Clearly bright and imaginative, he has no friends his own age. His inability to pick up on hidden agendas makes him easy prey to certain cruelties, as when some kids paid him a few dollars to wear a ridiculous outfit to school.

The Wired article goes on to suggest a correlation between geekiness and Asperger:

At clinics and schools in the Valley, the observation that most parents of autistic kids are engineers and programmers who themselves display autistic behavior is not news. And it may not be news to other communities either. Last January, Microsoft became the first major US corporation to offer its employees insurance benefits to cover the cost of behavioral training for their autistic children. One Bay Area mother told me that when she was planning a move to Minnesota with her son, who has Asperger's syndrome, she asked the school district there if they could meet her son's needs. "They told me that the northwest quadrant of Rochester, where the IBMers congregate, has a large number of Asperger kids," she recalls. "It was recommended I move to that part of town."

This suggests two interesting things.

On the one hand, the apparent insensitivity of some developers to sexism might just be another side-effect of their condition: bright, highly functional nerds, are often somewhere on the Asperger spectrum. (Here is a not-so-serious test).

On the other hand statistics also show that Autism and Apserger are  4 to 5 times more prevalent with boys than with girls. This might be another indication that being "just" a smart woman is not enough to be accepted by the community. You've got to have it too: the double-sided syndrome which -depending on its extent- is a curse or a blessing.

To summarize on a less speculative note, here is another key finding of the European study which graphics are displayed above:


F/LOSS participants, as in most scientific cultures, view technology as an autonomous field, separate from people. This means that anything they interpret as ‘social’ is easily dismissed as ‘artificial’ social conditioning. Because this ‘conditioning’ is considered more or less arbitrary, in their view it is supposed to be easily cast aside by individuals choosing to ignore it. F/LOSS also has a deeply voluntarist ethos which values notions of individual autonomy and volition. As a result participants largely do not believe that gender has anything to do with their own individual actions. The situation is thereby perpetuated in spite of the expressed desire for change.


So let's start by making what seems to be a small effort:

 

What about avoiding all sexist jokes or remarks for a while and see how it goes?


Note: Other blog posts or docs of interest addressing the issue of open source and gender

  • Aria da capo
  • GLIT
  • OpenGender
  • Les said, the better

Posted at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Jonathan is holding his chopsticks pretty well


Pix-rhino-sun-s The rumor has it that Carlos Ghosn, the French-Lebanese business genius who turned Nissan-Renault into the 3rd or 4th worldwide automaker, made a point of  using properly chopsticks shortly after he became CEO of NISSAN, so that to gain respect from his co-workers.

Little things do matter.

In the open source world, many  grandiloquent declarations of free and open source commitment have been legitimately questioned by apparently minor details: Microsoft refusing the GNU GPLv3 on their open source repository CodePlex or Google refusing the GNU AGPLv3 (Affero) on open source repository Google Code are good examples of such troubling discrepancies.

Short of a slow start and a few hiccups, SUN has done pretty well so far. The company seems genuinely committed to open source and free software. Here is a story that shows that SUN commitment runs even deeper.

Rhino is a widely used (I suspect its transmission is somewhat viral) open-source implementation of JavaScript written in Java.

A few weeks ago Eclipse people identified a discrepancy between the set of compiled classes in the shipped Jar and the set of CVS source files.

A long time ago, when large software dinosaur companies were roaming the internet oblivious of the arrival of free and open source, a developer (CVS log and LinkedIn suggest the guy might be currently working at Google) had this great idea for using quickly a few files explicitly tagged proprietary by SUN.

* Copyright (c) 1998 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*
* This software is the confidential and proprietary information of Sun
* Microsystems, Inc. ("Confidential Information"). You shall not
* disclose such Confidential Information and shall use it only in
* accordance with the terms of the license agreement you entered into
* with Sun.

Why not slurp dynamically the source code from the URL so that to integrate it into the Jar? Those files are still accessible here.

At a time when FUD enthusiasts are warning about free and open source doomsdays, FOSS commiters started to scratch their heads. Many, many projects were using Rhino. Well, and there was also this tiny little fact that Rhino is released under the GPL.

A bug was filed by an IBM committer late February and the open entry was finally closed a few days ago with SUN deciding to release the code under a BSD-like license.

It might  have been but a small issue. However, it shows that SUN is listening to the FOSS community and that real commitment matters. Incidentally, it also shows that this commitment must be a cultural trait shared by all SUN engineers:

 
Do you know of any other company who could have kept an URL alive for over a decade?

Posted at 07:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Another IP lawyer milking the GPL FUD


A recent article from Edmund J. Walsh in Law.com has generated a few negative echoes in the FOSS community. The article is not very interesting as such since it provides with many allegations, almost no facts and only 3 links: a law firm, the author's bio and a link to the Software Freedom Law Center.

What's more interesting is the way Mr. Walsh spread his FUD arguments. Basically the entire document is built so that the reader forgets about 2 things:

  • Fair comparison: Every time an open source license obligation is analyzed, it should be compared to the similar or the more stringent obligations of a standard commercial license for an equivalent product/code.
  • Risk analysis: The number of lawsuits involving proprietary licenses is much larger than the number of lawsuits involving open source licenses,  even when the number of lines of code is factored in. So from a pure statistical standpoint, an open source code is always much safer, regardless of any legal interpretation.

I Should stop here, but I cannot resist, giving you a few excerpts.

Two recent events should give for-profit companies new reasons to re-evaluate the ways in which they use open source software as well as the extent to which they use it.

In other words, that's only because of law suits that one should re-evaluate.  Does it mean that the law should matter only when there is a risk to be caught red-handed?

Although the lawsuits are not about changed provisions in the GPL, both events are muscle-flexing by the free software community and, taken together, may foreshadow new risks in the irreconcilable conflict between open source software and its widespread use by for-profit companies.

Here I'm a bit puzzled by the argument:

1) What is a for-profit company? Aren't all commercial companies for-profit? Or is that just a name game to let us think that open-source companies are not for-profit companies?

2) If there is an irreconcilable conflict between open source and for-profit companies, how can we explain such avowed widespread use? Are for-profit companies plain stupid or is irreconcilable  to be understood as a simple wish dream from people who are in the business of making a living out of irreconcilable differences like... divorce lawyers?

Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users.

Yeah, you've got to admit, only a lawyer could have missed that free software did not mean free users. BTW, the Free Software Foundation  has been around since 1985, some 23 years ago. .. and you consider this a new lesson?  Slow learner, huh?

Any activity that leverages software for business advantage is likely to restrict the software's freedom, and the growing use of open source software by for-profit companies has been a growing irritant for free software advocates.

The GNU GPL has been engineered so that no legal activity (commercial or not) can restrict the software freedom. So once you have understood this, the sentence can be more appropriately rewritten:

Any legitimate activity (no matter the purpose) does not restrict the software's freedom, and the growing use of open source software by for-profit companies has been a growing irritant source of pride for free software advocates and open-source-friendly companies like Red Hat, Ubuntu, SUN or IBM.

See,  no need to invent a GPL rash or a mad GNU disease. BTW .... did you get tested?

For example, implementing proprietary features on top of open source utilities to provide a low-cost computer-controlled product ("smart box"), and distributing a program on hardware that blocks execution of modified software, have proven to be contentious issues

Here is the trick: what's not legit often tends to be contentious, any lawyer will tell you.

Cisco who respects the license and hence abides by the law, publishes all of the sources from their linksys routers. And doing so never prevented Linksys to generate revenues in the amount of of several USD 100M every year.

Running commercial Web services using open source software without releasing source code has also caused consternation in some quarters.

A quarter without even a link to point to, that's not a quarter, that's a dark corner in another galaxy.

This issue by the way has been answered in 2002 with the first publication of the Affero license. More recently the GNU AGPLv3 has replaced it. Ooops yes, I forgot: slow learner.

Under the new version of the GPL, those limits even extend to hardware that companies may provide to run open source software by prohibiting use of open source software on hardware that blocks execution of modified software.

Well, the thing is: if you want to modify software you've got to be able to run it somewhere. Duh. Hence the GPLv3 which precises exactly under which circumstances you should be able do that.

Companies are also required by the new GPL to license to others all patents they own or control related to open source software, even those not related to code they add to open source software, and even if they did not own the patents at the time they distributed the open source software.

Not exactly (but hey, I'm not a lawyer). The patent is licensed only to this extent that it cannot interfere with the freedom of the software (i.e. the other clauses of the GPL). This is a much better protection against patent trolls than many proprietary software.

This provision applies whether that distribution is part of a conscious marketing strategy or a casual sharing with others outside the organization.

Casual sharing? Yes many companies do that: they organize Software BBQ sharing party where everybody brings along a few USB keys and something to grill. The most daring ones organize white-elephant parties with the software of their company.

Last time I got unlucky: a pack of 1,375 USB keys with Vista.

 

Didn't anybody tell you that casual sharing might bring you ... viruses? In retrospect, don't you feel already Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt creeping in?


 

Posted at 01:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Boy Scouts of America to fix self-serving open source

So apparently the Boy Scouts of America are all Gun Ho about open source. Computer World explains us that they have launch their BSA Open Source Initiative. Worth mentioning is that this initiative has nothing to do with the Business Software Alliance  nor is it affiliated in any way with the Open Source Initiative.

Open Source celebrities and former Boy Scout and OSI (the other one) co-founder Eric S. Raymond is quoted to be "delighted to see this happening". He adds:

The scout goals of education, community service and fostering individual self-reliance are perfectly in tune with open-source community values.

Cool. I only wish I had Mr. Raymond as a troop leader when I was a 14 y.o. boy scout. At that time, learning about defensive programming would have seemed even more thrilling than exchanging at night a few tidbits about self-contentment.

When a woman has had several orgasms on the tip of your tongue, she's likely to be forgiving even if you're so aroused that you explode immediately on entry. Think of it as defensive programming... 

             Sex Tips for Geeks: How to be good in bed - Eric S. Raymond

 

Thanks for coming back :)

Since a recent experience with Microsoft got me worried about people using terms out of context, I thought I'd browse through the open source BSA site to find out more. Especially worth reading (and source from most of the quotes) are the pages named classroom and history.

So what is (boy scout) open source? The answer is straightforward and somewhat haloed of an authoritative quest:

The Boy Scouts of America E-Learning Classroom project has invited Open Source experts from all over the world to answer the question "What is Open Source?"

I was expecting a good old Free Software definition like:

  • Freedom to run the code
  • Freedom to study it
  • Freedom to redistribute it
  • Freedom to improve it.

Or maybe even a more practical OSI-like definition with things like:

  • Free Redistribution
  • Access to Source code
  • Allowing of modifications / derived work
  • No discrimination against persons or group
  • No discrimination against fields of Endeavor

But of course Freedom and non-discrimination are not always boys scout cup of tea hot cocoa. So here is the BSA definition:

The basic guidelines that drive Open Source projects are the requirements that the Software is open to review, adheres to open standards, and is open for use by others.

  • The Open to Review requirement means that anyone can get involved in the project.
  • The Open Standards requirement insures that OSS products will interface with other technologies. 
  • The Open Use requirement means that the software is free from restrictions for its use

Ok, here we have a completely new yet simple, definition of open source. I guess the FSF and OSI should have asked a cub scout too. No more semantic fight.

But what will BSA do with this new open source vision of their? Clearly one important task will be to fix the way FOSS projects are managed:

The process of managing OSS projects is not well defined within the Open Source Community and OSS projects do not fit well into the Project Management models that have recently been gaining acceptance among technology managers and development teams.

Project Management as a discipline, applied to OSS projects, remains mostly an afterthought to project leaders.

So, yes, let's bring on a little bit more of this flexibility and openness that always comes with any good BSA MBA. The site goes on:

Through the OSI Project, the Boy Scouts of America has an opportunity to contribute to the advancement of the Project Management discipline while improving the process of creating Open Source Software.

Thanks for fixing it! But wait, that's not all. Under the auspices of the BSA, the entire FOSS community could also learn to be more user-centric and less ... well, geeky.

Most OSS projects undertaken today are the result of an idea expressed by a developer, not a user. The OSI Project will reverse this model by focusing projects on providing solutions to the needs expressed by users.

The perception of OSS being only for "geeks" accounts for a major barrier to the acceptance of OSS by the mainstream body of software users.

See the problems is that those FOSS geeks are in fact a bit of self-serving jerks themselves:

The common motivation that most OSS projects have focused on, have been related to inward looking self serving factors.

Self-serving and a bit narrow minded:

Very few initiatives are specifically intended to benefit a wide spectrum of users across a broad range of needs.

But of course, all in all is well since a redemption is not only possible, but genuinely offered:

With the OSI Project the Boy Scouts of America has an opportunity to be a leader in establishing a model for other organizations to follow.

Especially since in exchange for this redemption the FOSS community will accept BSA without question and provide immediate manpower:

The motivational factors of the Boy Scouts of America would be accepted by the Open Source Community without question. The Open Source Community will embrace the entrance of the Boy Scouts of America as a member of the community and provide an immediate support base.

In summary, a win-win situation. FOSS projects will provide immediate support in exchange of which they  will learn to listen to users, learn how to properly manage projects and finally broaden their horizons by serving more altruistic needs altogether.

By the way, volunteers should start here, working on a project  which is obviously not self-serving at all:

The OSI Project will provide a proving ground for future project management and software development methodologies employed by the Information System Division at Boy Scouts of America National Headquarters.

But enough fun, what about the future? I mean, is really open source the way to go?

a significant number of technology companies (IBM, Microsoft, Sun, HP, Nokia, Adobe Systems, Texas Instruments, and others) have introduced Open Source Initiatives and OSS development websites.

If Microsoft is in (Novell is also cited elsewhere) I'm sure everything is all fine and dandy then.

More and more companies are reviewing the development model that has emerged from the OSS Community as a possible future model for their IT departments.

Why the hack do I have this impression of déjà vu ... Ah, yes, collaborative development. A Microsoft way to look at open source development method without open source in it.

So can we have another example (ya know, less commercial) of altruistic use of open source? Sure, here is a nice example quoted by the site:

When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open source. It may come as a surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is the single largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.

From Brigadier General Nick Justice

What can we say. Once more, Justice was served?

But why is the project server a Microsoft server then?

The server sits inside of an MS infrastructure so that's why you see an MS signature from outside. But the entire system is pure Open Source

Ah, Okay, I'm relieved. But then why are the BSA web tools compatible with Windows IE only? Well, this last post hasn't been answered so far...

 

BSA Open Source Initiative:

       Why do I have this tingling sensation that BSA might have one letter too many?

       

Posted at 09:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

BitTorrent: Taking down DMCA takedown notices


Courtesy of groklaw a great research paper (pdf) from the University of Washington dissecting under which assumptions DMCA copyrights infringement takedown notices are in fact generated for BitTorrent users(1). The conclusions of the paper are most troubling and show that a number of current enforcement practices lead to poor, inconclusive identifications.

Note that this research doesn't even take into account the obvious cases where a computer has been cracked in any way (e.g. trojan). This is the IP identification process itself which is shown to be highly unreliable in most cases.

  • Innocent users can be targeted by a notice even when they are not using any P2P software and without being framed 

Our results show that potentially any Internet user is at risk for receiving DMCA takedown notices today. Whether a false positive sent to a user that has never even used BitTorrent or a truly infringing user that relies on incomplete IP blacklists, there is currently no way for anyone to wholly avoid the risk of complaints.

  • It's incredibly easy to frame/implicate pretty much any user or any machine, even for devices like printers or even non-DHCP wireless access point:

Copyright holders utilize inconclusive methods for identifying infringing BitTorrent users. We were able to generate hundreds of DMCA takedown notices for machines under our control at the University of Washington that were not downloading or sharing any content.

  • Current privacy protection measures like black lists are largely inefficient, but for now stealth monitoring is not completely possible either.

We also find strong evidence to suggest that current monitoring agents are highly distinguishable from regular users in the BitTorrent P2P network. Our results imply that automatic and fine-grained detection of monitoring agents is feasible, suggesting further challenges for the monitoring organizations in the future.

  • Interestingly, not all swarms are created equals as regard to monitoring.

[...] the current approach to enforcement has a natural limiting factor. To avoid being detected, our traces suggest that enforcement agents are not monitoring most swarms and tend to target those new, popular swarms that are the most economically valuable.


What can we conclude?

  • People who don't agree with the law should try to get it changed
  • People who are concerned by privacy issues should contribute to developing enhanced P2P systems: the paper suggests indeed a few directions such as on-the-fly black lists and stronger encryption.
  • People who have been unfairly targeted should fight back, with the help of organizations such as the Chilling Effect Clearinghouse or the EFF.

Addendum

Carol Ruth Shepherd from Arbor Law left a great, detailed comment (see below) and reminds us that the DCMA has a section 512 (f) against fraudulent, overreaching, and incorrectly targeted DMCA takedown demands.

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Addendum (06/15/08): Apparently the EFF decided to fight back in this case




(1) Here is a FAQ about DMCA, takedown notices and P2P protocols.


 

Posted at 02:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Vote on your favorite open source project


Tired of letting companies or so-called well-informed blogs telling you what's the best open source project around?

Well, in the same spirit than that of  Equitable Open Source but this time for qualifying the projects themselves,  Source Forge is offering you to vote.

Here is the SourceForget.Net 2008 Community choice award!

Don't pass on an opportunity to make your opinion count!

Posted at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Mr. Matusow, South Africa and the Microsoft brainwasher

Before to comment in details the latest production of Mr. Matusow, I'd like the reader to pay attention to the following: in his post, Mr. Matusow's mentions:

Collaborative Development: 9 times
OSS: 8 times
Free (as in Free software): only once

So could you ask, what is this collaborative development, this new syntagm Mr. Matusow is using all over the place? Well, buried deep towards the very end of his post, Mr. Matusow gives us a definition of sort:

I was deeply involved with a series of projects that demonstrated a wide range of possible approaches to collaborative development (using non-OSS, OSS, and Free Software licensing models; using various approaches to tools, project types, funding models, etc.).

That's extremely interesting: throughout the post, collaborative development is used so that to  be confused with OSS: both terms are employed almost as frequently and in a context where they can easily be used interchangeably.

But then, at the very end of this article, we are discovering that collaborative development -hence OSS in the confused mind of an innocent reader- encompasses both OSS and non-OSS developments!

This is Microsoft internal communication at its finest:

  1. Change the name
  2. Employ this new name as frequently as possible as a synonym for some concept you want to kill or to blurr
  3. Shift its semantic so that it means something else altogether; He, who controls the verb, controls the reality of things.

Now without further ado, let's jump into yet another line-by-line comment of Mr. Matusow edifying new posting.

 

Last week I wrote a blog entry stemming from my experience in South Africa and my impressions about the way the OSS preference policy is being considered. What has come of it is a string of rather pointed comments questioning my intelligence and calling me quite the assortment of names - I though xenophobe was a particular low-point in the comments. Given the comments, it is worth clarifying my thinking and making a few points.

I think Mr. Matusow forgot to point to MTG in his answer. That’s customary to link to the blog to which one is answering so that to be fair and also noticed by the person about whose writing you're commenting. Maybe a real answer wasn't really expected after all.

Another quick fact: I didn’t write the word xenophobe but I totally agree with Mr. Matusow that his condescension might have easily been misinterpreted.

1) I think collaborative development can be extremely beneficial to South Africa. In fact, I think it should be a key aspect to their IT strategy for their eGovernment strategy. I simply don't think that discussion is limited to being about platforms.

Here is the first mention of platform in this post. The reader will notice that Mr. Matusow always manages to make us believe that the FOSS vs. proprietary debate only pertains to platforms yet he denies it every step. We will see later on how it plays.

As Glen Moody noticed, this is not of a Windows vs. Linux debate and yet, Microsoft keeps positioning it that way: probably because the main open source threat Microsoft perceives comes from applications like OpenOffice, not from platforms or OSes per se Therefore shifting the focus on the OS debate is a way to deter people from looking at more sensitive issues.

There is absolutely no reason that the agencies using any platform are precluded from using collaborative development to drive greater value from the existing ICT investments.

See, just one line later the platform is here again. But to answer Mr. Matusow's remark, nobody is "precluded" to do anything. If he had read my post more carefully, he would have noticed that I was giving  a link to the governmental recommendation in question.

Here is the reference again since it was missed the first time around:

The primary criteria for selecting software solutions will remain the improvement of efficiency, effectiveness and economy of service delivery by (the) government to its citizens

I see nothing unfair in here, nothing precluding anybody to choose the best. Then Mr. Matusow continues on platforms (again):

To the extent that an agency is in the process of considering making new platform investments, then they should be free to look at all options and choose the one that provides best value for money over the long run.

Free to look? Really Jason? Did you even realize the extent of the power relationship existing  between a country like South Africa and a company like Microsoft? And although the numbers cannot be directly compared, they give a fair idea of the differential forces at play.

Did you know that South-African GDP is roughly equal to Microsoft market cap? Remember, I'm not talking about the much smaller government budget, but about the total wealth (internal and external) produced by the entire country over a year.

  • South Africa GDP: USD 255B
  • Microsoft market cap: USD 258B (w/ a revenue of some USD 60B)

Please, remember that next time you'll enter a meeting and will ask for the debate not to be politicized. You are representing the same wealth, power and hopefully responsibilities than that of a medium-sized country albeit with a totally different agenda.

Understand, I don't think Microsoft is evil as such, but I don't think Microsoft is good either. Companies, especially large ones, have their own impetus, their own logic that makes them -by nature- oblivious to the people, the country or the global dynamics really at stake.

2) I think technology mandates are not good policy in any country. In fact, I remember speaking at George Washington University a few years back and making this same statement. At the time, the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation and the CTO of Red Hat both expressed support of that comment and that their organization's held the same view. Technology providers want their current and future technologies considered on the merits of the technology and the value those technologies bring to those who choose to consume it.

Well, see we keep agreeing. In an ideal world, technology policies should be decided on merit. The question is: what if we are in a world where large companies are exerting undue pressure on governments? What can be done then? But I'm anticipating.

If a government mandates a specific technology and/or class of technologies, they are unnecessarily restricting their own choices. Inevitably statue moves more slowly than technology, and mandates subsequently lead to sub-optimal choices.

I’m glad to read that Microsoft will stop lobbying local, national and foreign governments and will fight for its products or its standards on technical and business merit only. However, how do you explain what was reported during the past few years?

  • 2002:  Microsoft US-lobbying effort exceeded that of Enron
  • 2006:  Microsoft tried to overwhelm Massachusetts' CIO
  • 2008:  Microsoft in Singapore, fighting against local technical auhtorities


In short many, many attempts at making sure that technological merit isn't the only factor at play: as reported here by Forbes and synthesized here by Boycott Novell.

So please Jason, instead of lecturing the world about "technical-merit decisions" please ask Microsoft to provide you with an Internet connection and use it. It's easy, underlined words are called links, and you can click on it so that sometimes, truth can be revealed.

Note that it does work with a non-Microsoft mouse albeit maybe not with a Microsoft-only mind.

3) My comments about the education of developers is a macro point and has absolutely nothing to do with whether those developers are in South Africa or any other country. I have no doubt that there are very talented Linux kernel developers in South Africa. Great - good for them, I think that is awesome. But it still doesn't answer the macro question about the types of projects that will both create high-value solutions and attract local participation leading to the in-country skills development that the policy is seeking to do.

As always, very astute argument. Focusing (maybe even second-guessing government motives -who knows, there are so few links yet so many assertions in your posts) on one possible argument to subsequently disprove it.

While I'm sure there is a subset of folks deeply interested in the core OS functions, there is a reason that a very small percentage of developers work on core OS development. I'd guess this is the same reason that there are relatively few operating systems compared to the literally millions of applications out there. Skills development is a good thing - I'm simply advocating that people look to the possibility that there is far more to collaborative development than OS coding.

There are 2 main reasons why you're missing the point and showing a very poor comprehension of software developers.

  • Any great platform developer will stay a great developer no matter what is the subject. Some great GNU developers came from AI. Conversely great OS developers can shine elsewhere without much problem.

  • Remember, the world is flat. Any open source project leader will tell you that one of the beauty of  an open source project is precisely its capacity to attract, to mentor and to foster knowledge sharing among developers coming from all over the world, including those coming from countries that would have been deemed too poor to foster the dynamic and the infrastructure required by a large and complex project.

Finally, please stop polarizing the debate on operating system. Once more, OpenOffice runs on both open source and non-open-source operating systems.

4) I made a point in my last post on this subject regarding the opportunities for the creation of local software businesses based on OSS.  Many, many governments are eager to see the growth of local software businesses. I am fully supportive of that intent, but don't happen to believe that OSS is necessarily the best model to bring that about. Economic opportunity is bolstered by having something unique. The most successful OSS companies have found a way to "hybridize" their solutions to in some way secure the uniqueness of their work while still tapping into the collaborative development community. Comparing the number of companies that have been commercially successful using that model with the tens of thousands of software providers using other development/commercialization approaches suggests to me that an OSS mandate is not likely to lead to the growth of local commercial software firms

So your point is what exactly? The best model is RedHat but it doesn't work at the end because there are still many more traditional companies than there are open-source-based companies?

But Jason, open source software helps all software companies, small and large.  What a shortsighted view to believe otherwise. Let's have Mr. Gartner (sic) speak for us:

By 2012, 80 per cent of all commercial software will include elements of open-source technology.

Many open-source technologies are mature, stable and well supported. They provide significant opportunities for vendors and users to lower their total cost of ownership and increase returns on investment. Ignoring this will put companies at a serious competitive disadvantage. Embedded open source strategies will become the minimal level of investment that most large software vendors will find necessary to maintain competitive advantages during the next five years

BTW having an open source policy ready in 2015 will not cut it: Microsoft should accelerate things.

Furthermore, Linux business is growing fast everywhere. The growth (30+%) of Microsoft's partner Novell in the mid-market is boosted by Linux, not by Microsoft products.  As Justin Steinman, Novell's director of Marketing for Linux and Open Platforms told Matt Asay:

Novell's core Linux business is growing. By "core," I mean that our non-Microsoft- related Linux business is growing. These are Suse Linux Enterprise Server subscriptions sold directly by the Novell sales force or by our channel partners, without any Microsoft certificates or Microsoft salespeople involved.

BTW I can't help but pause here too. Let's remember the reason why Novell accepted a patent  agreement with Microsoft. Based on technical merit only?  Maybe not after all, if you're listening to South-African and Ubuntu's father Mark Shuttleworth, explaining why he (and Red Hat) didn't accept Microsoft "offer" to enter such a non-sue agreement:

Allegations of 'infringement of unspecified patents' carry no weight whatsoever. We don't think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together

You've got to admit this is a good one. Another technical-merit-only offer from Microsoft but based on undisclosed technology. Imagine a technical due diligence on undisclosed technology. I suppose that you don't need to hire technologists anymore, only psychics!

I was impressed with the people I met in South Africa. But I was also struck by the political realities of a technology mandate vs. the real-world opportunities open to them through a broader approach to collaborative development.

You seem indeed much more impressed than you were when you wrote your previous post. Well, of course, in between South-Africa as filed an appeal to OOXML certification. And a bunch of other countries have followed its example. Impressive indeed.

I was deeply involved with a series of projects that demonstrated a wide range of possible approaches to collaborative development (using non-OSS, OSS, and Free Software licensing models; using various approaches to tools, project types, funding models, etc.).

Too bad I've already warned the readers about the collaborative development trick. Besides, you should say FOSS not just OSS. I guess the Free word is just another F word for Microsoft.

BTW in case you don't know, the (FREE software license) GNU GPLv3 is also an open source license although not one accepted on Microsoft repository CodePlex.

And we all understand why: the GNU GPLv3 somewhat protects FOSS developers from abusive patenting litigations. No more allegations of infringements of unspecified patents and therefore no more FUD war.

Furthermore, I went through dozens of scenarios of thinking about core assets vs. complimentary assets and how OSS dev methodologies could be applied. There is so much more to the conversation than Linux vs. Windows.

But Jason, reread your post, you're the one who framed the debate around platform and the Linux vs. Windows opposition. Everybody knows that FOSS is much more than that.

And also please stop implicitly equating FOSS to development methodology. As you would say, there is much more to it than that.

In fact, given the world of interoperability opportunities today, I'd argue that enterprise-scale environments are far better off thinking about "and" compared to "vs." and really looking at where the value to them from collaborative development is. Commercial implementations of enterprise-class operating systems are not free of cost.

So - again, to me, the question is about how collaborative development can be used to extend the value of any platform decision.


I won't even bother to comment on interoperability. But thanks for allowing me to summarize ...

Extending rather than replacing platforms? Collaborative development instead of FOSS development?  Intimidation and lobbying rather than fair technological advantage? Semantic plays instead of ethical blogging? 


                               Jason, on what planet exactly are you living?

 

This article has been quoted or cited by:

  • Groklaw
  • Boycott Novell
  • Lxer
 

Posted at 06:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

10 organizations of interest to FOSS developers

Over the years, I came to appreciate a number of organizations that although not directly linked to free software and open source are of interest to the FOSS community. Pretty much everybody knows the free software foundation, the software freedom law center, the Linux foundation, The GNU project, the open source initiative, Creative Commons or Groklaw.  Here is a list of other extremely interesting (mostly US-born) organizations and/or projects.

PS: Except for Linux and GNU I didn't mention FOSS-project centric organizations.

 

Electronic Frontier Foundation ( wikipedia description )

EFF is regularly involved in defending organizations like Wikipedia (some are suing Wikipedia because they don't approve of content) or even Google (some are suing Google because AdSense uses certain keywords)

From the Internet to the iPod, technologies are transforming our society and empowering us as speakers, citizens, creators, and consumers. When our freedoms in the networked world come under attack, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is the first line of defense.

  • Free speech: From blogs and websites to mailing lists. Example.
  • Intellectual Property: Free circulation for information, P2P and DRM. Example.
  • International watch: Fighting for digital rights around the world. Example.
  • Electronic Privacy: Whenever users privacy is not respected Example
  • Innovation Protection: when established businesses attempt to stifle innovation Example
  • E-voting rights: Example


EFF patent busting project (wikipedia description)

The idea is to help finding prior art (here is the list of top 10 most wanted) so that to kill stupid software patents.

Tired of bogus software patents? So are we! To combat these annoying and often dangerous legal weapons, EFF has launched the Patent Busting Project to take down some of worst offenders.

We need your help!
Take a look at the Top Ten Most Wanted culprits on our list, and let us know if you have any leads on technology that predates them (called "prior art") that we can use to challenge their validity. Click on a patent to find out more.


League for Programming Freedom (wikipedia description)

Software Patents are bad: The LPF was founded in 1989!! by rms.

The League for Programming Freedom is an organization that opposes software patents and user interface copyrights.


OpenNet Initiative (wikipedia description)

A detailed overview of Net censorship (regardless of justifications) everywhere in the world. Remember the good old time when Usenet was called  "News" and not censored by providers?

Internet censorship and surveillance are growing global phenomena. ONI’s mission is to identify and document Internet filtering and surveillance, and to promote and inform wider public dialogs about such practices


Chilling Effect Clearinghouse    (wikipedia description)

One thing is to have laws preventing you to publish certain things, another is to have people abusively threatening to litigate in the hope that you will comply  because you don't have the means or the knowledge to defend your rights...

Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you.

  

Open Rights group (wikipedia description)

A UK organiSation focusing on privacy rights, DRM abuse and organizations gathering personal data.

The Open Rights Group is a grassroots technology organisation which exists to protect civil liberties wherever they are threatened by the poor implementation and regulation of digital technology. We call these rights our “digital rights”.


Center for citizen media (wikipedia description)

Did you know that bloggers had their own chart: the principles of Citizen journalism.
Accuracy - Thoroughness - Fairness - Transparency and Independence.

This is the website for the Center for Citizen Media, a new initiative aimed at helping to enable and encourage grassroots media, especially citizen journalism, at every level.


Digital Native

Focusing more on asking the right question than on imposing a top-down academic answer: How do youth in different countries use online socialization tools differently, and what is the significance of these differences? Who is our digital native?  How do we empirically explore the digital generation gap?

Digital Natives focuses on the key legal, social, and political implications of a generation "born digital" - those who grow up immersed in digital technologies, for whom a life fully integrated with digital devices is the norm.


Berkman Center for Internet & Society  (wikipedia description)

The Berkman Center's mission is to explore and understand cyberspace; to study its development, dynamics, norms, and standards; and to assess the need or lack thereof for laws and sanctions.


 The Pew and Internet & American Life Project 

The Pew Internet & American Life Project tracks and analyzes how computers and the Web are changing today’s world. Its work helps the media, academics, policy makers and others to better understand technology’s impact on society.


I'm sure I have forgotten many. Care to help build a longer list? Leave a comment!

 

Addendum :  This page was unfortunately not sponsored by the  John D. And Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. :-)  In recent years they funded the EFF (USD 600K), The Open Net Initiative (USD 3M), the Creative Commons (USD 1.2M) , The PEW Research Center (USD 315K) and The Berkman Center for Internet Society (USD 11M+ not counting the Open Net Initiative) .

 

This post was quoted or cited by:

  • Scott Ruecker on LXer
  • DZone
  • Linux Today
  • Russian OpenNet
  • Free Software Daily
 

Posted at 09:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Next »