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

[Alex Hudson]

On Fri, 2003-11-28 at 11:54, Andrew Savory wrote:
> > Personally, I would think that an "open source" conference should not
> > have proprietary vendors.
> 
> This is the source of the misunderstanding. We're not talking about an 
> "open source" conference - that's the sort of thing AFFS should 
> organise ;-) 

Not likely ;)

> we're talking about a conference run by an advisory 
> service which is all about informing people of the choices involved in 
> using open source software. One of those choices is most certainly 
> "don't use it", and so it makes a lot of sense to have a representative 
> of the alternative there to talk about it.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing with here. My worry is not that
people might criticise free software, that's okay, that's balance. My
worry is that the meeting would be used as a platform to promote
proprietary software. That's the distinction, although you may think it
a subtle one. The point of reference of the conference is open source -
in that sense it is an "open source" conference. As far as I'm aware,
that doesn't just mean it's a vendor conference that happens to include
open source proponents?

> interoperability. Proprietary vendors are as well placed as anyone to 
> tell us how easy it is(n't) to integrate their products and OSS 
> products in a mixed economy.

I definitely agree with that. And that would be the kind of thing you
might expect them to be there for. But, only within the context of
appraisal of free software. Proprietary software is an alternative, but
promoting it doesn't appear to me to tell you anything about whether or
not free software is any good - it's not actually providing any
constructive information, it's just an alternative. I don't see how that
informs on the subject of free software, which I thought was the point
of the conference.

> One of the best things about Free Software is that it's about a "level 
> playing field", proving that we can compete on quality and service 
> rather than by lock-in and unfair trade practices. By inviting "the 
> opposition" to our events, we show that we have nothing to fear and 
> nothing to hide and that we feel we can compete with them on any turf.

That's a lovely world to live in, but they don't play like that. That's
like the gentleman dualist playing fair even though his opponent is a
gunslinger and will shoot him in the back.

> And don't forget that to be successful you have to know your enemy. 
> Most evangelists seem to have spent too little time in the real world 
> lately, and are far less effective as a result.

Please be clear that I'm not arguing about their attendance, it's about
what they would contribute to the debate. And, of course, I have no idea
whether or not they are contributing anything useful, as far as I know
they are. I am arguing against the promotion of proprietary software as
some kind of constructive balance though, because I don't believe it is.
It's not just Microsoft, I would have similar concerns about IBM - but I
believe that no-one has raised it because IBM have much more to
potentially contribute, even though they are a proprietary software
vendor. They have experience in the OSS arena, whereas Microsoft have
none. 

Cheers,

Alex.