Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: OSS Watch inaugural conference, 11 December 2003

[Kevin Donnelly]

On Thursday 27 November 2003 8:07 am, Marc Eberhard wrote:
> > The list of presenters at the conference includes:
> > Nick McGrath, Head of Platform Strategy, Microsoft Ltd

Perhaps I'm being a boring old fart, but why is an open-source group at an 
open-source conference having an MS presenter?  Presumably it's in some sort 
of misguided attempt to be "fair" and hear "both sides of the story".  

But MS doesn't actually *offer* any open-source software in the standard 
definition of the term - "3. Derived Works: The license must allow 
modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under 
the same terms as the license of the original software." (and even patches, 
the next step down from this - item 4 - can't be distributed under the MS 
shared-source program AFAIK).

I also can't see Steve Ballmer saying, "Look guys, for the next WinHEC 
conference I think we need to introduce some balance and let those 
open-source dudes get some time.  Sure, they'll be mauled, but it's the right 
thing to do - see if Bruce Perens is available.  And I think we should offer 
some floorspace to some of those wacky projects they're always on about - you 
know, that Patchy webserver and that MySquishy database thing.  It'll give 
our guys something to compare our own great products to."  

Talking to those who might be converted to FLOSS, MS will say it's important 
to hear both sides of the story, purely in order to introduce some doubts in 
their minds about changing.  Talking to those who are already in their 
pockets, MS will not extend the same argument, for precisely the same reason.  
Why is this not obvious to the people organising this and other conferences?  
Balance, by definition, has to be balanced.

On this basis alone, I doubt whether there would be much point going to this 
conference.  As MJ will know, I am quite content with the concept of 
"open-source", but this sort of timid scheduling ("let's mention the 
possibility of alternatives, but let's not annoy MS too much, just in case - 
after all, they might fund us to do some independent research") is giving OSS 
a bad name.  This group seems to be an attempt, all too common in the 
academic world, to jump on the back of the latest bandwagon and try to 
salvage some "relevance" from it as a "clearing-house" or "information 
centre", until the next "new thing" comes along.  Presumably this is being 
used as the basis for a grant application somewhere.

Perhaps David Tannenbaum, who is a researcher at OSSWatch (and will be 
presenting at the conference), and who has asked this list for some 
assistance recently on the free software movement in general, could pass 
these points on to the organisers.  Better yet, perhaps he could offer some 
justification as to why anyone should take OSSWatch seriously?

As I said, I'm a boring old fart.

-- 

Best wishes

Kevin Donnelly

www.kyfieithu.co.uk - Meddalwedd Rydd yn Gymraeg