Last Word on ADTI Document

kris writes "Linux and Main's Anthony Awtrey put together a very nice analysis of the ADTI "Opening the Open Source Debate" paper before and after the temporary retraction. He came up with some interesting research of just why the paper adressed specific examples such as the FAA and exposes the FUD behind the FUD in the paper."

Comments

Context?

[peterdaly]

I am unclear on the context. Where was the article he is commenting on, and who was the intended audience?

Other than me not being clear on that, it was a good article once I got through some rough parts at the beginning. I think this guy should write his own paper on the topic, since he seems to know it and took quite a bit of effort to comment on someone else's.

Can someone clue me in to the context? Should I know the names of the people involved? I don't.

Must be a slow Sunday.

-Pete

Re:Context?

[fermion]

I am unsure why this is so highly rated.

The basis of the review is a rewritten version of a paper published by the he Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. The main purpose of the original paper was presumably to put a credible "Think Tank" justification on the standard Microsoft closed source dogma. The original paper was quickly withdrawn after widespread criticism for lack of credible scholarship or logic. The paper did, and does, largely contain unsupported statments and hearsay. It is important to discredit this paper, as it appears to be an important part of the anti-GPL PR campaign

Microsoft has been forging a war against open source software in general, and the GPL in particular. The GPL is a serious threat to companies like Microsoft because they can no longer take previously developed outside software, modify it, repackage it, and sell the product as thier own innovation. The GPL will force such companies to provide all code to the customer for which the software was intended, and acknowledge that the software uses GPL code. This openness has huge economic and competitive consequences to closed source software vendors who maintain a monopoly in their field (the problem is likely greater than Microsoft).

The revised paper is still a contrived piece of propaganda meant to scare people into thinking that open source software, and most notably the GPL, will cause economic collapse and massive terrorist attacks. This is interesting because lack of transparency in business and politics in precisely what causes economic collapse and terrorist attacks. Remember Enron and the lack of communication between the various U.S. agencies. We should therefore expect companies and government to insist on transparent business practices.

In any case, the paper will be used to get the U.S. congress, schools, and other governments to fork over huge licensing fees to Microsoft, Sun, and other such companies, for software that these agencies can neither control or properly audit. Which is not to say that closed source software is good, or open source software is bad, but to say that silly wolf in sheep clothing papers are a waste of everyones time.

Several reasons

[epepke]

1. This is under Section 3, which only applies to distributing executables. If you don't distribute executables, it doesn't apply.
2. This is clarified in Section 0: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
3. 3b is one of three options. If you do 3a, giving the source, you don't have to do 3b.

There's one more thing about the GPL that most people miss. It is directed to a licensee, not the author. Note from section 7: "Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice."

I want a "FUD FAQ"

[bokmann]

I want a document that has the 10-20 most often heard arguments representing the FUD companies try to spread about Open Source in general and the GPL in particular, and a clear, concise, relevant, non-inflammatory rebuttal to each.

The author's language, such as "the market is a tough bitch" and "hell yes!" will not fly if I ever want to supply a rebuttal to these kinds of arguments.

Take the original paper's example of "a piece of software an engineer writes that represents 5000 hours worth of work, but uses a GPL component that represents 100 hours of effort. Is the GPL'ed component's requirement to release the original work under the GPL 'fair'?"

The proper rebuttal to this is:
Imagine that an engineer writes a piece of software representing 5000 hours worth of work, but uses a PROPRIETARY component that represents 100 hours worth of effort. That proprietary component has a license that says 'the engineer will pay $10,000, plus some percercentage of revenue the original work generates". There are PLENTY of proprietary products like that. Is that fair?

It is up to the engineer to decide. If his time-to-market is so critical that those 100 hours are worth $10,000 plus a percentage, then that engineer will do it... otherwise, they will just write it. It is a business decision, like any other.

In both cases, the person who wrote the 100 hour effort component OWN THAT WORK, and get to say what the costs of its use will be. The person using it has to decide what costs they are willing to pay.

In GPL, the cost is not financial (at least, not directly). The 'cost' is to release the 'new' product under the same license. Many other licenses (both Open and Proprietary) put 'costs' on that have nothing to do with monetary value.

I want to see 10-20 arguments like this made. they are clear, concise, NON-INFLAMMATORY, and make a point.

Re:I want a "FUD FAQ"

[sconeu]

I believe that Villaneuva's letter to Microsoft does that rather nicely.

Interesting link

[rjamestaylor]

Thanks for the link you provided. Hunting around, using only hyperlinks provided on their pages, I found another directory: http://www.adti.net/html_files/technology/ which may go a long way to explaining the ADTI's comfort level with Microsoft. For example, see the pro MSCE articles:

• http://www.adti.net/html_files/technology/anders on ad_techtrends020501.html
• http://www.adti.net/html_files/technology/purpsq ui rrel_familiarity0201.html
• http://www.adti.net/html_files/technology/Weston _c ounty_gazette_041901.html
• http://www.adti.net/html_files/technology/Standa rd _examiner_techtrends041001.html

And so on... Just click through the stories that are ALL pro-Microsoft, anti-Antitrust. Holy Cow. Western Civilization depends on an unfettered Microsoft to lead the technology charge!

A very brief rebuttal... (with text)

[dwheeler]

A very brief rebuttal can be found in my "Look at the Numbers!" paper; see http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#adti; I also include links to other rebuttals.

In one place, ADTI claimed I said something I didn't say, and in others ADTI intentionally carefully quotes only part of what I said.