[Fsf-friends] NEWS: Free Software protests Microsoft's participation
Frederick Noronha (FN)
fred@bytesforall.org
Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:40:03 +0530 (IST)
URL : http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6784
[50]Linux Community NYFairUse representatives staged a peaceful
protest at last month's DC conference supposedly aimed at exposing
free and open-source software to government officials.
[51]NYFairUse representatives, costumed as the American Founding
Fathers, left the warm comfort of their homes at 4:00 in the morning
on March 17th, 2003, to go down to Washington DC. We left for George
Washington University in full colonial regalia in a 15-person
passenger van. The purpose of our trip was to protest the
mismanagement of the EGOVOS conference taking place that morning.
The central issue that galvanized NYFairUse in this situation is the
increasingly irresponsible manner in which free and open-source
software advocates have been putting together conferences and events.
EGOVOS was supposed to be a showcase for free and open-source software
in government, be it local, national or international. The conference
had the potential to open up a stubbornly closed market by laying out
the legal, moral and practical foundations for the use of free
software in everyday government operation. Instead, it became a
platform and photo opportunity for the Microsoft organization--the
inevitable result when the $40 billion company dedicated to destroying
free software is invited to make a presentations.
As expected, Microsoft didn't let their shareholders down. The few
news items that came out of this conference were about Microsoft's
"Shared Source". Microsoft's money buys real loyalty in the technology
press, and in a conference with little media coverage the only
mainstream press was from E-Week, which ran a full article on
Microsoft's misdirections under the headline, "Microsoft's Matusow: No
Right Way to Create Software". The article did everything it could to
blur the differences between free software and the closed,
anti-competitive methods of monopolists. All of this becomes fodder
for their next $100 million campaign aimed at every CTO in the nation.
Worse than that, it takes food off the table of our free software
consulting industry and the developer community it supports. Their
presence crippled people who sell free software for a living. It
damaged those who could offer the uninitiated (such as the attendees
of the conference) a solid, firsthand presentation of the benefits of
free software. It leaves the public confused about the benefits of
free software in their businesses, jobs and lives.
Bad Leadership versus Good Advocacy
NYFairUse first heard about the problem with EGOVOS through the NYLXS
mailing list, as part of a follow-up on our experiences with the 2003
Linux World Exposition in New York. At the Expo, NYLXS member David
Sugar voiced his confusion about his product (the GNU/Bayonne
telephony system) losing the award for Best System Integration
Software to Microsoft's Services for Unix. NYLXS had its annual dinner
after the convention, and we spoke with Linux Journal editor Don Marti
about the award and its implications to our membership. Something
didn't seem right, but Don offered a reasonable explanation for the
turn of events. NYFairUse had an impromptu discussion about the award
and about the rumblings coming from SCO that suggested they might be
preparing lawsuits against the GNU/Linux community for infringing upon
UNIX patents. We decided to keep an eye on upcoming developments on
both fronts. A few days later. David Sugar e-mailed the NYLXS list
about Microsoft's presentation at EGOVOS.
We quickly had a broad and lively discussion about the situation, with
the participation of the Washington DC-area LUGs, developers from
California and Canada, members of the Free Software Foundation,
NYFairUse, GNU Enterprise, The Open Office Marketing List, a few
interested journalists, NYLUG and eventually Bruce Perens (who happens
to be a member of the group hosting the EGOVOS conference, the Cyber
Security and Policy Institute). I watched my e-mail account fill with
hundreds of private messages from people across the east coast, all
volunteering to protest Microsoft's inclusion. NYFairUse had an
internal discussion and decided that the last thing we wanted was an
unwieldy demonstration in front of hundreds of government officials
who might be investigating free software for the first time. We need
to reverse the trend of Microsoft getting a free public relations
boost at the expense of free software developers and advocates,
particularly at our own venues, so we decided that NYFairUse would go
in with a focused message presented by a small and prepared group. We
rejected the calls for a broad and raucous protest: if all the
volunteers showed up we would have outnumbered the actual conference
participants.
We had to figure out how to attract attention, raise the necessary
issues, put the open-source "leaders" on notice and still not turn the
conference completely upside down. The answer NYFairUse came up with
was exciting, fun and effective. We are fortunate to have associates
working on Broadway, and they introduced us to costume designers who
dressed us as Colonial Americans, circa 1776. Suddenly everything came
together, and NYFairUse was ready to move ahead in a constructive
manner. The core of the NYFairUse action included Joe Grastara, Dave
Williams, Cesar Vargas, Sunny Dubbey, Adam Kosmin, Tim Wilcox, Marco
Scoffier, Vincenzo L., Ray Connolly and myself. Dave Williams and Joe
Grastara helped us construct an effective message that became our
pamphlet. Ray arranged for transportation and drove both to and from
the event, a total of twelve hours. Cesar, Sunny, Ray, Tim, Adam and
myself dressed as Founding Fathers. Marco and Vinnie helped everyone
prepare. The entire enterprise was underwritten by NYLXS. Most of the
participants met in Brooklyn and stayed overnight at my home, where a
weekend-long InstallFest was taking place. Ray, as the driver, got
several hours sleep while the rest of us made final preparations. At
4:00 AM, NYFairUse embarked on the trip to Washington. We arrived
safely at 9:30 in the morning, fully dressed in costumes and ready to
make our case.
figure
Reaching our Audience: Confronting Hostile Guards
Upon our arrival at George Washington University, the appearance of
seven historic American heroes astonished people, and cameras flashed
all around. After we picked up our badges and began handing out our
pamphlets, people flowed out of the main auditorium to surround us and
inquire about who we were and what we were handing out. We brought 400
pamphlets, and all but a dozen where given away. Each NYFairUse member
became a center of attention. We managed to talk personally with
nearly every member of the conference accept for Bradley Kuhn, who
refused to talk to any of us for some reason.
Our pamphlet strongly condemned the organizers of the conference for
not appropriately representing the free software movement and for
caving in to self-interest over the good of the community. We
explained that they were giving Microsoft a free public relations
opportunity to confuse the issues and to promote their "Shared Source"
disinformation campaign. The conference itself, although filled with
luminaries from the international Free Software Community, was limited
in its attendance. During our visit, no more than 500 people were at
the presentations, but the numbers might have been closer to 300. The
small gathering proved useful, as NYFairUse was able to contact nearly
every participant directly. We had nearly 100% penetration of the
conference, including both attendees and speakers. Many of us spent
several minutes talking to individuals, and I personally had the
pleasure of speaking about the problem with European Union Minister
Philip Aigrain, whom I had previously met in Bordeaux last year. I
also spent a few minutes talking to Georg Greve of the European FSF,
David Axmark of MySQL, Sarah Brown from Public Knowledge and many
others whose names I failed to get. The same was true for all of the
NYFairUse members.
At one point while giving out pamphlets, the security guards came
over. Searching for the leader of the protest, one guard approached me
and asked who was in charge. I waved him off, and he became very
annoyed. He asked me my name, so I smiled and said, "George...like in
Washington, and you're in my University." I spotted journalist Grant
Gross and said, "Look Grant, they're throwing us out of here!" Grant
took out his notepad and the cameras gathered around. The guard
retreated and went to speak with Tony Stanco. They decided that it was
better to let us proceed than to face the bad press.
A few minutes later Tony Stanco came over to talk to me. I spent a
couple of minutes with him, during which he asked me if I got
everything I wanted out of the event. I told him that we'll know in a
few months, if Microsoft still is getting a free ride courtesy of the
Open Source community. Mr. Stanco reassured me that what we were doing
was okay. Having his approval was not reassuring. I made it clear that
it wasn't our intention to have a blood-letting. Our purpose was to
get a message across to the open-source leadership, explaining what we
require of them and what standards we expect. Mr. Stanco then pointed
to the crowd, saying, "You see these people? You'll never get through
to them with screaming and yelling." I replied, "Maybe -- it depends
on the need. In this case, we don't need to scream. In another
situation, a louder voice might be useful." Mr. Stanco then said,
"Have you ever heard Microsoft talk? They're going to be the best
promoters of Free Software when they open their mouths." I reiterated
my points: Microsoft's presence at the EGOVOS conference takes
attention away from other, more deserving individuals and focuses it
on themselves. Mr. Stanco refused to recognize the situation he
created. He also failed to understand that this was part of a broader
trend the community faces: the increasing encroachment of Microsoft in
venues designed to sell free software to the public. The public
deserves better.
By 2:00 PM, we essentially had spoken to everyone at the conference.
We made a lot of contacts, and in addition to handing out pamphlets,
NYFairUse members handed out literature about their own government and
business projects. In fact we took about 30 folders representing the
Free Software Chamber of Commerce, our New York Free Software
consultants network. Every folder was given out. We had a long
discussion with the head of Hewlett Packard Research in Europe, who
was very upset with us because he believed we opposed the
commercialization of Free Software. We spent some time explaining how
this was not the case, that we were upset because someone was giving
Microsoft a free pass to the Open Source movement without making them
contribute anything.
The NYFairUse Position
People often have asked why NYFairUse discriminates against Microsoft.
The truth is that NYFairUse has no such bias. Our approach to
Microsoft is the same as it is toward any company that warns
businesses to avoid the GPL (as if a standard Microsoft EULA would
withstand legal scrutiny). After all, they publish detrimental lies,
such as this one from the current Microsoft web site:
The GPL is designed to prevent commercial development of software
distributed under the license. It does this largely by requiring
licensees to make available, at little or no cost, the entire
source code for any program that incorporates any amount of GPL
code. Given that requirement, commercial developers cannot recover
their research and development investments by charging reasonable
and appropriate fees for their original software if it uses any GPL
code. Free-software developers have every right to pursue this
anti-commercial objective.
Microsoft's concern is the resulting degradation of the software
ecosystem that would be triggered by widespread acceptance of the
GPL, particularly within the governmental and academic research
sectors. This ecosystem has sustained unparalleled innovation
throughout the industry for the past quarter-century. The principal
role of government and universities in the ecosystem is to
undertake basic research and to dispense the findings both into the
societal base of technical knowledge and to private enterprises and
individuals capable of developing these innovations commercially.
Commercial enterprises, in turn, engage in applied research to
develop products that advance the state of technology, generating
jobs, profits and tax revenues that boost the economy (funding
additional basic research in the process). Commercial enterprises
also disseminate innovations directly into the larger
technical-knowledge base.
Microsoft uses its monopoly to thwart free software projects, such as
SAMBA when it bans companies from releasing CIFS tools under the GPL,
and when it participates in the Digital Rights Management scam that
will end the practical use of free software through the Palladium
"trusted computing" platform. But it wasn't Microsoft that we were
upset with on this occasion. We are mad at people such as Tony Stanco,
who discriminate against free software developers and distributors for
their own personal advancement. And we let them know about it.
As a footnote, after our trip to George Washington University,
NYFairUse made a trip to Capitol Hill while still dressed in our
costumes. We got big smiles all along the halls of Congress,
especially at Congressman Weiner's office. He's a member of the the
sub-committee on Intellectual Property and the Internet. We have a
handshake deal to install a GNU/Linux system in his office, so stay
tuned.