Crux of the matter
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Feb 21, 2007 10:41 PM EDT |
James V. DeLong spells out his entire assumption for his opinion in these exact words from the article:Quoting:"one rule is paramount: The customers win, because they control the marketplace. From this perspective, the deal between the two is dictated by a simple reality. The customers want what the deal provides. They want interoperability of open-source and proprietary programs--the ability to run both types of program in heterogeneous environments--without being required to perform the integrations for themselves. This means that open-source and proprietary software providers must create a structure that allows them to cooperate on finding technical solutions to their customers' demands. It is not possible to solve the customers' problems for open source without also solving them for proprietary companies, and vice versa." Thank you, Mr. DeLong, for telling us at length exactly what the customer wants! Let us exit "the reality" outside of DeLong's legal world. In a fashion less long than DeLong's, one can certainly argue as others have done in LXer, that customers can most certainly CHOOSE or NOT CHOOSE as they wish whatever solutions they need, with or without accepting the conditions of the deal mentioned in the article. The simple reality is that free choice itself rules, usually dictated in the marketplace by the perceived need to provide a goods or service or to purchase the same. Caveat emptor anyone? Those who zealously advocate open-source -- what DeLong considers "moral" or "religious" -- can never overemphasize enough the "free" in free choice (e.g., free as in speech, ... etc.) This freedom manifests in how open source software is created, perpetuated, obtained by the very customers DeLong claims to be speaking for, and ultimately how open source software is used (free of DRM) The very same FSF that DeLong ingeniously derides in his article is quite the cause celebre of MAINTAINING these very real freedoms... tangible freedoms for the same exact customers DeLong wishes that we believe he is speaking for! Quoting:It [the FSF] regards proprietary software as immoral, patents as the work of the devil, digital rights management as an unacceptable infringement on freedomThe irony of this article is the length DeLong and his Progress & Freedom Foundation's non-free supporters will go in order to attempt to discredit and turn the tables on Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. |
| swbrown Feb 21, 2007 11:26 PM EDT |
Take a look at the "Progress and Freedom Foundation" on sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_and_Free... Not really a surprise given 'think tanks' with names like that are pretty much all tools (Citizens against Government Waste and the American Enterprise Institute come to mind), but still worth having that out there. "In contrast, Microsoft and Novell are the antithesis of religions." They unite to form a Satanic Voltron? Which one is Pidge? |
| jdixon Feb 22, 2007 12:06 AM EDT |
Sigh. Mr. DeLong, doesn't seem to realize that no one will have to use the GPL v3 unless they want to. I wonder what part of that he's having trouble understanding. |
| swbrown Feb 22, 2007 1:14 AM EDT |
Also, because I was bored and wanted to see how far into 'owned tool' range these guys go, here's one of their publications from 2004: "Mundie, Craig, with James V. DeLong, Emery Simon, and Mark Stahlman. "Presentation & Discussion: The Future of the Applications Layer: Software -- Open Standards & Open Source." Webcast from Aspen Summit 2004. The Progress & Freedom Foundation, August 24, 2004." http://www.tvworldwide.com/globe_show/pffaspen/040823/agenda... Recognize some of those names? Craig Mundie is Microsoft's Chief Research and Strategy Officer. Emery Simon was (is?) a top attorney for the Business and Software Alliance. James V. DeLong is from The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Mark Stahlman is now a Gartner analyst. The presentation was given at the Aspen Summit 2004, which is run by The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Surely an independent and objective think tank.. I tried to watch their presentation but their server died on me around 31 minutes into it (it took mercy? :)). This is the paper DeLong pushes in the introduction to the presentation, which is a masterwork of /extreme/ FUD from 2004 we've run into before: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.8opensource.pdf Mundie's part of the presentation does the 'Open Standards, not Open Source' pitch that Microsoft was doing back in 2004 (which they've been fairly quiet about since OpenDocument started making waves). Emory's part was seeming to take it further with a 'Open Standards shouldn't have to not have patents' angle when he got cut off. |
| swbrown Feb 22, 2007 1:20 AM EDT |
> Sigh. Mr. DeLong, doesn't seem to realize that no one will have to use the GPL v3 unless they want to. I wonder what part of that he's having trouble understanding. Read the link to his paper I just added - he's not delusional at all, he's attacking and has been at this since at least 2002. I mean, he fishes up Ken Thompson's 1999 quote, "But if you want to use Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a long way to go", and tries to apply it against Linux.. in 2004. When, you know, EVERYONE was using it in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, 'and so on'. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!