Re: [!CrackMonkey!] Re: [fairuse] Re: E-Gov-OS conference

[Ruben I Safir]

On 2003.02.08 18:02 CEO of Brooklyn wrote:
> Looking further at the troubles with the e-gov-os conference and after
> reviewing the opinions of Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, David Sugar,
> Jay Sulzburger, David Wheeler, Stanley Klein, Chalu Kim, Claus Sørensen,
> Jason Faulkner, Russell McOrmond, Louis Suarez-Potts, David A. Hammond
> and others, comments which have expanded over 10 mailing lists, and
> which have generated a few hundred private emails to me in my private
> email box, I'm forced to draw several conclusions.
> 
> First, as President of NYLXS and President of New Yorkers for Fair Use,
> my primary concern is two fold:
> 
> First, in my role as President of NYLXS, my primary goal is to cater to
> the needs of the membership, and the extended constituency of the
> organization, the Free Software development community and users in the
> New York City area. In truth, all organizations have a primary
> responsibility to their constituencies. It is time for others to look at
> their constituency and see how they are serving them. An organization
> which doesn't serve a constituency is an organization in name only.
> 
> Secondly, as an individual citizen and active member of the Free
> Software movement, I'm concerned with broad policy decisions of others
> in regards to individual rights with in our digitalized communications
> network. I'm focused on practical activities which protect the freedom
> of individuals and empower individuals and communities in education,
> government and business.
> 
> These are the only two prisms in which I can view the planned events of
> EgovOS conference.
> 
> I tend to be very thorough and deliberate in my conclusions. When I work
> through the process of developing activities and actions, or when I
> write in regard to issues of importance in a proper fashion for
> publication, or when I give a formal opinion piece representing any of
> our organizations journals, radio shows, public speeches, or other
> formalized media outlets, I bring to bear on that presentation, not only
> thorough research of the issue and much consultation, but also my 30
> years of political and practical experience in affecting positive
> political and social outcomes.
> 
> I bring this same effort to this current letter, which I am opening up
> to the public and which will be published on http://fairuse.nylxs.com
> and which will be included in the coming NYLXS Journal.
> 
> First, let's look at the stated goals of the sponsored event. As listed
> on htttp://www.egovos.org/, the goals of this conference is:
> 
> Open Source for National and Local eGovernment Programs in the U.S. and
> EU
> 
> Goals: 1.the presentation of best practices 2.raising awareness
> 3.sharing of experiences among policy makers, donors, users/consumers,
> universities, and industry specialists in Open Source, e-Government and
> related fields.
> 
> 
> NYLXS has, for a couple of years, worked to sell Free Software on both
> the local, New York City Level and in the Federal Government. We'll had
> a variety of experiences in this regard, many of them very negative. As
> such, this conference seems to be important to the economic and
> political health of the NYLXS membership, including The Free Software
> Chamber of Commerce, our Public Educational initiative in New York City
> Public Schools, and New Yorkers for Fair Use. Our direct prosperity as a
> community is tied to the stated goals of the conference, and in fact,
> members of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce had prepared to make
> presentations at the conference. It was the concerns of members of the
> Free Software Chamber of Commerce which brought the problems which have
> enveloped the conference to my attention.
> 
> The main problem is the participation of Microsoft as a speaker and
> presenter at the conference. In a previous email, I have already listed
> the problems that Microsoft presents. But for the sake of making this a
> complete document, I will reiterate them and expand upon the Microsoft
> issue.
> 
> First of all, Microsoft is a reckless company which operates above the
> law. It has recently been convicted twice for antitrust activities, and
> has been guilty of numerous other illegal competitive practices which
> have gone without prosecution.
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm is a rundown of the current
> conviction of Microsoft for antitrust actions which is still going
> through the courts. Microsoft was not only determined have acted
> illegally in regard to browser technology, but they have also had their
> CEO, Bill Gates, lie under oath. The testimony can be searched here:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/video/gates/
> http://www.broadcast.com/news/billgates/
> 
> investigation of his perjury is here:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24990.html
> http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3MLEDHF0D&live=true&useoverridetemplate=ZZZUGORQ00C&tagid=ZZZNSJCX70C&subheading=global
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/msdoj991107.html
> 
> 
> They even doctored their prepared testimony which got much press:
> http://www.idg.net/crd_microsoft_67162.html and to quote:
> 
> Chase's testimony last week struck a note similar to the previous week's
> fiasco over a Microsoft videotaped demonstration. Government attorney
> David Boies had scored by pointing out inconsistent details in a
> videotape, submitted by Microsoft as evidence, that showed that
> Microsoft had used multiple PCs to film a demo the company first implied
> was a seamless segment filmed on one computer. U.S. District Court Judge
> Thomas Penfield Jackson said he did not believe that the Microsoft
> witness who had testified to the truthfulness of the tape lied about it,
> but trial observers said the incident undermined the defense's
> credibility.
> 
> 
> Further discussion of the Gate's Perjury includes
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Bill+Gates+testimony+Perjury&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=nobody-0602002327560001%40adsl-209-233-20-69.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net&rnum=5
> 
> In fact, this reprint of the original Ziff Davis Net article with a John
> Hall interview is in my private archive of resources. The article quotes
> Mad Dog Hall as properly urging the government to jail Bill Gates for
> his illegal activities:
> 
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources/johnhall-ms.html
> 
> Microsoft has competed unfairly with Borland, FoxPro, Netscape, Sun,
> Apple among others. They have actively pursued a business plan designed
> to strip individuals and organization from the fruits of their efforts
> by tweaking the desktop making others products function worse than
> Microsoft's products. They have repeatedly hindered the empowerment of
> people and prevented the empowerment of individuals, especially
> negatively impacting disenfranchised communities, such as those that
> NYLXS represents in Brooklyn, and the City of New York. 60 minutes even
> broadcast a show which showed to fear that developers have of Microsoft
> and the expectations of these developers to be damaged by their
> 'Partner'
> 
> Of the many corporations in the global economy, Microsoft alone has
> distinguished itself as a proactive opponent to Free Software.
> 
> Things began to heat up with the Halloween Papers.
> 
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
> 
> Microsoft then made a frontal attack on the Free Software Foundations
> GPL, the most potent tool which protects the community from hostile
> activities by businesses and individuals who wish to destroy our ability
> to collaborate.
> 
> This article by The Register at
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25891.html looks at how DRM
> (trusted computing) attacks the GPL.
> 
> This certification scheme will rip the guts out of the GPL. That is, the
> minute I begin tinkering with my software, my ability to interface with
> the Great PKI in the Sky will be broken. I'll have a Linux box with a
> GPL, all right; but if I exercise the license in any meaningful way I'll
> render my system 'unauthorized for Palladium' and lose business. So
> instead, I imagine I'll be turning to my vendor for support, updates,
> modifications and patches. And I'll be dependent on them for support
> services at whatever price they can wheedle out of me because I dare not
> lose my Palladium authorization. I wonder if the cost of ownership of an
> open-source system will actually be lower than the cost of a proprietary
> system under such circumstances.
> 
> 
> Prior to this, Microsoft's Craig Mundie made several false statements
> against the GPL at New York University.
> 
> Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU
> General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that
> incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself
> become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is
> distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely
> available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the
> GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization
> making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the independent
> commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to
> distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product
> rather than just the cost of distribution.
> 
> Microsoft had mailed to every IT director in the US brochures which
> vilified the GPL, the Free Software movement, and by extension, the Open
> Source advocates. These mailings contained blatant lies about the
> contribution of Free Software to the economy and threatened IT directors
> and developers with unfounded negative consequences if they deploy or
> use Free Software. The recent GPL FAQ, for example, has the following
> excerpt:
> 
> Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so
> frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain
> circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their
> intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL
> software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and
> explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review
> and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related
> license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
> 
> Businesses every day uses Microsoft Software and the software of others
> which contain intrusive and abusive licensing which is directly in
> conflict with logical business practices. They would never be accepted
> by legal teams if the process was open to genuine contract negotiation.
> The contracts with Microsoft foists on businesses through its abusive
> monopoly powers constrains segments which allow the disabling of the
> software and intrudes on the private ownership of data and systems by
> businesses which purchase Microsoft products today. This is in addition
> to the clauses which waves them from any responsibility for damages done
> to business through security violations or the failure of products to
> perform according to their expectations. And then they sponsored UCITA
> to make sure that downloaded software from Free Software vendors can not
> get the same level of protection in a blatant effort to damage efforts
> of distributors of Free Software to comply with the GPL.
> 
> Microsoft has been such an aggressive enemy of Free Software, and the
> general public that they have used the BSA to do witch hunts against
> users and business. They have threatened lawsuits against those who have
> reversed engineered their document formats They moved their free font
> access because users downloaded them for Free Software systems. They
> have proposed a DRM system designed to circumvent the freedom of Free
> Software development. They have fixed benchmarking studies versus Free
> Software systems. They have obstructed the legally required refund for
> operating systems which are forced on consumers with preinstalled
> systems. They built spyware into their multimedia players, twisted the
> Java programming language to be incompatible with the implementation on
> other platforms, refused to release products on Free Software platforms,
> which includes Microsoft Internet Explorer, introduced in NT4 service
> pack 3 changes to the SMB protocols to make it break with the Free
> Software SAMBA product, built back doors into in it's CryptoAPI,
> deliberately broke the Opera Web Browser when used with the MSN network,
> have brought down the internet through viruses TWICE in the last year,
> supported DRM in concert with Record Labels (
> http://rss.com.com/2100-1023-983017.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&subj=news
> ), broke basic TCP/IP protocols with IE5 and IIS (
> http://grotto11.com/blog/slash.html?+1039831658 ), advertised recently
> for advanced Free Software administrators to work for Microsoft in order
> to create a strategy to force businesses off of Free Software, and more.
> 
> Overall, Microsoft alone as a corporation has distinguished itself as an
> entity which, as a core business policy, is set to enslave Free Software
> and the general population. Their mission is to dehumanize and embarrass
> our membership, and to impoverish our community.
> 
> This body of evidence would be enough to reject out of hand the entry of
> Microsoft to the conference. But NYLXS and NY Fair Use has a growing new
> concern which is pushing it to action. In the face of the growing threat
> by the Microsoft Corporation to the well-being of Free Software
> developers, a threat that can be seen by Microsoft hiring GNU/Linux
> experts in the effort to undermine the business efforts of our community
> through lies and falsehoods, as well as technically breaking the
> beneficial integration of mixed environments, and which can be further
> seen by the 'shared source' media campaign which lies about the
> foundation of a free society and the stake of businesses in the
> promotion of both Open Sourced and Free Software legal foundation, there
> is an increasing knee jerk reaction by organizations supposedly
> representing the communities interests to give Microsoft a platform and
> a business advantage at conferences and shows which are designed to
> promote the community's effort in establishing digital rights and
> economic development. This started at 'Linux World Expo' in San Fransico
> and has moved into the New York 'Linux World Expo', where it directly
> damaged the well being of my membership through the winning of an award
> which rewarded them for creating a program only could properly write if
> you have the Windows code base, and it is now making its way to the
> egov-os conference.
> 
> The inclusion of Microsoft at this event directly threatens the health
> of the Free Software Chamber of Commerce in New York City. There are
> places for an academic style debate for Free Software versus Sun's
> community license and Microsoft's "Share Source' . A conference whose
> stated goals is to raise awareness of Free Software and Open Software
> benefits, to present the best practices for government, and to share
> experiences about the benefits of using Free Software in government, is
> not such a venue. This venue is about selling Free Software and the
> community's efforts to the government. It is hoped to and create a much
> needed stable economic pipeline for free software vendors with
> government, based on its technical and political merits. Microsoft's
> goals are in direct conflict with the stated agenda of the conferences.
> Allowing them to participate, based on the sole attribute that they are
> Microsoft and feel that they have something to say, is not enough reason
> to allow them a platform which will be used to hurt members of the
> community.
> 
> Microsoft has never contributed any code to the community. Microsoft has
> never advocated any benefits of the use of Free Software or Open Source
> Software Microsoft has never financially contributed to any Free
> Software development or promoted the education of people about Free
> Software Microsoft has not, in any way, befriended the community.
> Microsoft has positioned itself as an enemy of the community and has
> threatened it on numerous occasions. In fact, Microsoft has singled out
> the Free Software and Open Source community for abuse.
> 
> Because of the growing misconduct of those who are presenting Free
> Software and Open Sourced Software to the public, first IDG and now
> egovos, NYLXS and New Yorkers for Fair Use is now contemplating action,
> not so much directed against Microsoft, but those wolves in sheep
> closing who are more directly hurting my membership and the community at
> large.
> 
> In considering actions to take, we are looking at a number of
> possibilities. First, it is the opinion of Jay Sulzburger that we can
> use a hour of time to counter the arguments of Microsoft. My experience
> is that this will not work. On July 17th, I lead NY Fair Use to
> Washington to argue against the inclusion of DRM. Despite the fact that
> our presence was the most important part of the conference, to the point
> where we engaged productively from the audience both Jack Valenti and
> Philip Bond, we got no mainstream press. This was despite the presence
> of the New York Time's Amy Harmon and others. But our action was famous
> on Capital Hill. When we went back for the Peer to Peer/Berman Bill
> hearing two months later, several congressional staff members sought me
> out to ask what we did and to give us compliments. Simply, in regard to
> Jay's suggestion, nobody will attend such a session outside of the
> choir, and it will receive no press. On the other hand, Microsoft will
> get much press.
> 
> It has been suggested that egov-os is better to concede a place for
> Microsoft to allow an open debate. This will not be affective, and the
> alternative of being tongue whipped by Microsoft in the press is far
> better since they simply don't qualify for a placement at the
> conference, and it will allow us to present to the government
> administrators without interference. It is not NY Fairuse's policy to
> play 'whack the mole' with DRM issues. Instead, we focus on specific
> actions which will have broad affect and undermine the ability of our
> political foes to bring endless action again and again through the
> governments entire alphabet soup of bureaucracy and congressional
> committees. If Microsoft objects to being excluded, NY Fair Use
> (http://fairuse.nylxs.com) would be all to happy to provide a forum for
> both Microsoft and Richard Stallman, and others, for the benefit of
> academic debate. It would be a good fund raiser for the Free Software
> Institute in the coming months. My guess is that Bill Gates has no
> interest in such a real debate. His company is only interested in
> marketing and damaging the community. Therefore, participation by any
> Free Software advocates, or Open Source advocates, in this egov-os
> conference is highly damaging to the community if it includes Microsoft.
> And we are therefor calling on a boycott for this event.
> 
> It has been said that nobody is stupid enough to believe that
> Microsoft's 'shared source' promotes Open Source software.
> Unfortunately, this is very wrong. On the Open Office.org website, every
> day people ask if they can use and distribute the products. While I
> wouldn't say people are as dumb as rocks, I will say that they've been
> so conditioned to think out software as a super-restricted, crash
> inducing, virus ridden products, that they often have trouble thinking
> straight about what they should expect from business and software
> providers.
> 
> NY Fair Use is now looking to organize a protest of the event in
> Washington. A protest will at least give those genuinely from the
> community an uninhibited outlet. However, NY Fair Use, in general,
> dislikes protests as a vehicle of change, as we feel they mostly are
> ignored by a public besieged by 'the protest of the day'.
> 
> As a result, we are looking at a more organized campaign against this
> convention and those who would put events like this one together without
> considering the moral imperative of not harming the community by giving
> those who wish to destroy use a platform such as this. Egov-os
> supposedly advocates Free Software usage in business and government. It
> should do so without constraint and without apologies.
> 
> We are calling for an investigation of the egov-os organizers for
> misconduct. I've spoken with Tony Stanco many times and it's not
> possible that he doesn't grasp the basics of the issues outlined here,
> or how including Microsoft will negatively affect our community.
> Therefor, the invitation of Microsoft to this conference must be either
> a direct payoff, or self promotion. Since they are moral equivalents,
> they are both both equally condemnable.
> 
> We insist that Microsoft should not be given any platform at this event,
> because it is their purpose to undermine the community and its efforts.
> Since this is not being promoted as an academic debate, but instead is a
> marketing tool for Open Source and Free Software, we reject any
> arguments which are based on the concept that we should open the floor
> to them in order to dispel Microsoft corporate lies. This venue does not
> have the most basic format to handle this problem.
> 
> If, for contractual reasons, it is impossible to remove them from the
> conference, we ask the organizers to give NYLXS's subcommittee, New
> Yorkers for Fair Use, both the keynote and the Microsoft slot in the
> speaking arraignments. David Sugar will represent NYLXS, and I will
> represent NY Fair Use.
> 
> Finally, the website for the event needs to have on the front page a
> clear statement that it has determined that Microsoft's 'shared' code'
> program to be directly in opposition to both Free Software and the Open
> Source ideals, in that it does not promote the empowerment of the
> community through the freedom of innovation and digital systems
> ownership by individuals, the government or businesses.
> 
> I do not expect that these suggestions will be taken by Bruce Perens, or
> the other organizers of the egov-os events. So I expect that we will
> have to work to oppose the event.
> 
> 
> Ruben Safir President New Yorkers for Fair Use http://fairuse.nylxs.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> __________________________
> Brooklyn Linux Solutions
> __________________________
> DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com
> 
> http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
> http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
> http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and 
> articles from around the net
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....
> 
> 1-718-382-0585
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CrackMonkey: Non-sequitur arguments and ad-hominem personal attacks
> http://crackmonkey.org/mailman/listinfo/crackmonkey
> 
-- 
__________________________
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
__________________________
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com

http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting
http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and 
articles from around the net
http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn....

1-718-382-0585