|
|
| Money Talks |
 |
|
Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:00 PM EDT
|
This story almost tells itself. Remember in August, when the UN's World Summit on the Information Society declared itself in favor of open source? It seems Microsoft didn't like that. Lobbying ensued, and the US and certain EU countries brought pressure to bear. Your tax dollars at work.
The upshot?
"International governments have toned down their proposed endorsement of open-source software models, following lobbying by businesses at a preparatory meeting of the World Summit on the Information Society, which is set to run this December in Geneva.
"Language in an August draft of the WSIS Plan of Action that would have advocated the use of open-source software, particularly in developing nations, was toned down in the September 26 draft, to give equal weight to the value of proprietary software.
"The August draft promoted open source awareness, the creation of intellectual property mechanisms supporting open source, and the creation of a UN 'Programmers Without Frontiers' body to support open source software in developing nations.
"In the new draft, these are replaced with a more general description of how governments should "promote awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by different software models... including proprietary, open-source and free software".
"The changes were apparently made after input from several nations uneasy with excluding mentions of proprietary software from the Plan, and from the business lobby's delegation, which came out strongly against open-source.
"'Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models,' said the delegate from the business lobby, during the conference debate.
"'Governments cannot know, case-by-case, what software solution is best for every user,' she said, urging the deletion of the open-source provisions. 'Each user should be allowed to make a choice that meets their individual needs.'"
Yes, the story is absolutely outrageous. The whole point was supposed to be to bridge the digital divide between IT haves and have-nots, and it's obvious that would mean open source software, not proprietary. The next time I see a headline about the Gates Foundation giving away money in the third world, I'll remember what they did here, lobbying to make sure IT have-nots stayed that way.
But I look at it this way. Evidently this organization didn't want to even suggest using proprietary software until they were lobbied hard. That doesn't bode well for Microsoft and proprietary software. Open source/free software doesn't have to pressure or lobby anyone, and they still will win, barring international martial law. No matter what the paper ends up saying, governments will continue to switch over to open source/free software. It's a no brainer.
Another way to look at this article is to look at how the organization's proposal against spam got seriously watered down too. The earlier draft had a number of proposals, including prosecution of spammers. The 100 words got reduced to this recommendation: ""Take appropriate action on spam at national and international levels." My, the company Microsoft is forced to keep just to stay in the running! It's a sad, sad story.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
| In this
report our "friends" at Gartner predict serious complications in the trade
between the US and the EU when the EU software patent directive becomes law in
2005.
I seriously wonder what is happening in the Brussels backrooms. The
voters were allways told that the original text of the directive was ment to
prevent software patentability... And now that is made clear in the amended text
it seems wrong to the "computing industry".
My suggestion (as an European) is
to harmonize US law in 2005 to prevent the problems Gartner
predicts. ---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
Whenever I see these sorts of stories, there are always /.ers that pop up
and say, "Hey, be fair. Let governments have the freedom to pick
whatever works best, and there are times when proprietary software
works best. So let's not discriminate either way."
There may well be circumstances when FOSS still doesn't provide a niche
need, and I won't argue against that. But a signficant shift is about to
occur within the propietary world, and it's a shift that I think behooves a
move away from the propietary world as fast as possible. With the
development of Digital Restrictions Management (and yes, I know that's
not the official name but that's how I think of it), soon Microsoft will be
able to dictate to you what you can do with your own data, will be able
to snoop through your system, and will be able to enforce an upgrade
schedule that suits Microsoft (not the client).
Any government among the IT have-nots that sees this coming will think
very, very seriously about moving to open source solutions. Why a
foreign government would want to place their IT data under the control
of a U.S. corporation, let alone one with such a terrible reputation, is
beyond me. And evidently beyond most of those governments, given
current trends.
So spare me the "Hey, don't advocate one side over the other"
argument.
The proprietary world has armies of lobbyists and mega-million
advertising budgets. They don't need any more advocacy. Open source,
in contrast, is at an awareness disadvantage compared to propietary.
Given the real danger proprietary software is about to raise, anything
that creates awareness of the alternatives is welcome.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 08:24 PM EDT |
The catch here is that the setup of decision making in European Union is
fundamentally fload (just like UN security council by the way). There is no way
in principle to pass any law in this setup that will have any teeth.
Pretty sad, hah? Maybe we need an open source government model. Who would be the
Stallman and Linus then, I wonder.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 08:47 PM EDT |
Don't know if this has been posted before.
Interview: SCO sets out its defence
(PC Pro)
Linked to from LWN
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Saturday, October 04 2003 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
One of the strongest arguments I have seen to not provide indemnification for
copyright infringement in Linux with respect to proprietary software, namely SCO
has already provided indemnification:
"[W]hen a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of copyright
infringement, irreparable harm is presumed. ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Stellar
Records, Inc., No. 95-7887 at 8091 (2d Cir. September 19, 1996). The
presumption may be rebutted, if the defendant is able to demonstrate that the
plaintiff delayed in bringing an action requesting preliminary injunctive
relief. Bourne Co., 976 F.2d at 101; Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273,
276 (2d Cir. 1985). An unreasonable delay suggests that the plaintiff may have
acquiesced in the infringing activity, or that any harm suffered by the
plaintiff is not so severe as to be ”irreparable.” ", --- Richard Feiner
& Co. v. Turner Entertainment Co., 98 F.3d 33, 34 (2d Cir. 1996).
SCO allegedly knew about infringement problems in December 2002 --- almost ten
months ago yet they have failed to request a preliminary injuction for copyright
infringement. Does "may have acquiesced in the infringing activity"
in the above ruling ring any GPL bells?
---
THERE IS NO INFRINGING CODE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:02 AM EDT |
| What do this have to do with the SCO situation? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ra on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
It may be a repeat, but here is a link that shows that far from recklessly
rushing things into Linux, the "encumbrance review and cleanup"
process for XFS at SGI took almost a year.
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/mail_archive/200003/msg00038.html
The first announcement of SGI's intention to donate the code that I can find
was May 1999
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-05-21-008-05-PS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
I have extended the SCO/Linux FAQ site to include an IAQ (Infrequently Asked
Questions). These questions are to be asked of SCO, either in an interview or
in a public forum such as this month's City to City meetings.
These questions are not designed to obtain information, since we already know
the correct answers. Rather, the intent is to force SCO to either (1) admit the
truth, (2) say something demonstrably false, or (3) be so blatantly evasive as
to discredit themselves.
See: http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/
Suggestions are welcome.
Scott McKellar[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: ra on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: ra on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Typos - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: Alex on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: ra on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: ra on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: shaun on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- Thirty more questions - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 05:57 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: ra on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:04 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 11:41 PM EDT
- OT: beginnings of an IAQ - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 02:00 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
This has been discussed in green and poverty activist circles for many years.
The First world works through the international organizations to remove all
tariffs.
Then the first world's exports [1] flood into 3rd world countries, wiping out
local agriculture, sometimes the only sizeable industry there.
[1] cheap because of subsidies that somehow magically never disappear, subsidies
the 3rd world governments cannot afford to give their own farmers. There's a
reason why the latest talks in Cancun fell apart.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
