Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Wired has an article from almost a week ago titled Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare.
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.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Why does the author keep referring to the IP community and the "GPL community" as separate things? He even says that the GPL competes with US copyright law. This guy either has a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright or is a bald-faced liar. GPL'd software is IP as much as any proprietary software. GPL'd software uses copyright law as its basis, just as proprietary software does. The only issue here is the licensing terms. The only term that they take issue with is the fact that they can't simply steal the code and incorporate it into proprietary products because they would have to release the source to those products. That's their whole gripe.
They don't even consider the fact that most proprietary licenses are far more harsh than the GPL. In fact, you don't even have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. If you don't agree, then basic copyright law applies. If you do agree, then you get additional rights, over and above what traditional copyright law allows, albeit with some obligations as well. I think that any claim about the restrictiveness of the GPL license is disingenuous at best.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you ever get the opportunity, try asking for a show of hands at a computer convention of any kind, for all the people who work writing off-the-shelf software. Last I heard, the number was typically well below 20%.
The rest work in a variety of areas, ranging from custom embedded systems (where the license of your code matters not one iota because the code can't be changed once the device is manufactured, and it's only useful to the one device anyway) to custom software such as web application development or "enterprise" business logic (where the license of the code matters not one iota because it's never released, and only useful to the one company anyway).
So at worst, if all off-the-shelf software were eliminated, the software industry would shrink by 20%.
More likely, companies with large software requirements (like needing 100,000 installations of an office suite) will channel some of the money they're not spending on licenses and employ some programmers to answer the question of "where do we get bugfixes from if there's no company to turn to?". Once you reach a certain size, employing a few full-time programmers is actually cheaper than paying the ludicrous license costs of OTS software these days. Or they could pay a company like Red Hat or IBM or Sun for "support" (ie, to employ some programmers to prioritize this set of bugs/features over all others).
You've said that "100% open source isn't truely viable" but not backed it up in any way. David Skoll at least backed his point of view up by pointing to great software produced entirely without business models being in the picture. Who is more credible, the one who makes a (admittedly lightweight) argument to back up his point of view, or the one who simply calls the other a zealot with no argument?
It's hard to argue against someone calling for "balance". But sometimes "balance" simply isn't necessary or desirable. Just ask the Catholic Church what kind of reception their "balanced" approach to sex abuse is getting. Sure, that's a reductio-ad-absurdum. But since your whole argument seems to be "balance is necessary!", it suffices to point out a single counterexample...
Stuart.
I was quoted in the document as a "programming expert". Er, not exactly. My specialty is installation programs and configuration management. Yes, I code, but in the open source world, I'm not an important contributor. Also, in my email exchange with Mr. Brown, I pointed out that I was not an expert in the GPL, yet he specifically cites me about aspects of the GPL. That particular portion was quite possible my least favorite of everything I wrote because I neglected to mention you only need to publicly release your own source code if you publicly release the binaries. This is a glaring omission and I must apologize to the Open Source community for my own stupidity.
-- Will program for bandwidth
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.
http://rocknerd.co.uk