Responses to ADTI Paper

Everyone and their brother has something to say about the silly and incoherent ADTI paper released yesterday. It doesn't even seem worth the effort to me - it's so internally inconsistent that I can't imagine it convincing anyone of anything. Nevertheless, David Skoll of Roaring Penguin has a good rebuttal, and Newsforge ^? pointed out that the MITRE study that's been kicking around for so long is now public, and took a look at the differences between the two. Update: 06/11 18:43 GMT by M : Another rebuttal, by John Viega and Bob Fleck of Secure Software.

Comments

is the ADTI

[Karma Star]

really just a front for MS to push a political agenda around? i've never heard of ADTI (although i do know who Alexis DeTocqueville is) until now, and they don't seem to be a legitimate research organization.

really, if open source poses a threat to national security because of the availability of the source code, then we should also remove all books from libraries because of the same threat they pose to national security.

What surprises me...

[Dark Paladin]

Is how obviously biased the paper is - it's badly sourced, badly written, badly argued (there's holes in their arguments big enough to drive the proverbial truck through, like, "GNU doesn't let you steal source code for profit - the bastards!" - when proprietary licenses will throw you in jail for stealing source code), and so far, badly taken by anyone who knows anything about technology.

The counter argument (I read it on The Register this morning) is well written, well argued, has plenty of great sources, and except for the "Adapt or Die" bit repeated over and over again which showed his own bias (cool, but probably not the professional white paper people care about), it was a convincing argument.

So what was the point? If this "independant think tank" was paid for this research, whoever funded them should ask for a refund. If they did it to prove a point, someone should go back to "Presenting Important Arguments 101" and come back when they can present a logical, convincing argument.

All this appears to be is something a backpocket Sentator can wave and say "Look at this important research that proves why we need the GNU Illegal Code Act of 2003!". And sadly, most voters won't care because they don't know any better.

Then again, my 3 month old son doesn't know he shouldn't eat his hand. Same difference, I guess.

Re:What surprises me...

[krlynch]

The counter argument (I read it on The Register this morning) is well written,

I have to vehemently disagree with this. NEITHER of the linked rebuttals qualifies as well written; the MITRE report qualifies as well written, and so does most of the AdTI report, but the rebuttals to the AdTI report do not. They BOTH make the mistake that continues to negatively impact the arguments of Open Source/ Free Software advocates: childish personal attacks. Continually repeating phrases like (paraphrasing here) "Microsoft, err, AdTI, says" and "worried about losing the Trophy Wife and the vacation home in the Bahamas" are NOT logical arguments for the superiority of open source software, and they make the open source community look bad. Logic alone will not win the day....

So, while the AdTI piece is certainly poorly researched, corporate pandering tripe, it is likely to have a much MUCH larger impact on policy makers than any rebuttal, not BECAUSE of its accuracy, but because of its tone. Open Source gets bitten by this all the time, and the advocates don't seem to be learning.

Re:What surprises me...

[Rogerborg]

• NEITHER of the linked rebuttals qualifies as well written [both make] childish personal attacks.

I take your point, but I rather think that the point that the rebutters are making is that the AdTI article is so blatantly biased that it simply doesn't deserve to be treated seriously.

I suspect the problem that we're seeing here is really that news publications will run the most inflamatory rebuttals rather than the driest, most factual ones. It's easy to argue that rebutters should just stick to the facts, but then they'd vanish without trace and we'd just end up reading equally inflamatory replies from different sources. On balance, I believe that both rebuttals do a good job of balancing necessary publisher appeal with useful references.

Running a business is a privilege

[Neil Watson]

I like this part:

The government's productive alliance with private enterprise is also relevant particularly when its decision to use GPL source code would inherently turn away many of its traditional partners. Security, as well as other impracticalities make GPL open source very unattractive to companies concerned about intellectual property rights. In effect, the government's use of GPL source code could inevitably shut out the intellectual property based sector.

The Government must choose software to maximize national security and minimize government expenditure. It owes absolutely nothing to the "IP-based sector" or any other corporation. What was it I said before? Oh, yes: "Tough. Adapt or die."

It seems to me that many corporations are complaining about loosing their ability to make a profit. They expect the government to legislate things to help them. The author hints to this here but, let me add to it:

Running a business is a privilege granted by the people (business/vendor license). There are no rights, promises, or guarantees that running a business will earn any profit.

Re:Thanks, MS.

[David Gerard]

Yup, I think that's the point I've always wondered at. Why is MS so upset at the GPL?

This goes back to the Halloween Papers - which correctly identified the GPL as "immune to FUD tactics". But that's all they've got, so they're trying it again and again.

Microsoft's competition model is to wound their enemy (Netscape, Word Perfect, Novell) and wait for them bleed to death. Copyleft (the GPL, the MPL) is the wound to Microsoft that they cannot heal.