Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts

An anonymous reader writes "Open source advocate Tony Stanco, of the George Washington University Cyberspace Policy Institute has been getting flamed for allowing Microsoft reps to speak at an Open Source in government conference he's putting on next month. Today, in a commentary on NewsForge, Tony responds to the flamers. He says, "Leave it to the kooks in the community to make Microsoft look sympathetic." Is he right? Should we be willing to listen to what Microsoft has to say? Aren't open minds important to open source?" Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.

Comments

Why shouldn't MS speak?

[Spazholio]

If the Open Source community is so convinced of Microsoft's villany and non-worth, allow them to speak on their own behalf. People need to come to their own conclusions about this matter, or they'll never truly reconcile themselves to the fact that Open Source is a truly good thing, possibly even superior to Microsoft's offerings. Wouldn't it be better for the OS movement to win in a forum of free discussion, than to say, "This is MY point of view, and it's the right one. No, I won't let you speak and defend yourself, because I'm right." How childish does that seem?

let M$ speak, BUT .. adhere to rigorous validity

[DancingSword]

In Other Words, whenever they ( or anyone else ) deploys FUD, bogus-reasoning, ignore-the-important -to- concentrate-on-whatever-we-say-is-'urgent', etc. we clue-in to what ignorance-commitment's doing, AND attack the method of ignorance-committing as-it-happens.

Behold:
Essence-of-integrity is the ultimate weapon.

( actually, from the buddhist AND from the nagual perspective, this is a key-method of mind-survival )

As long as they have something to contribute...

[JeremyR]

From the conference's Web site:

This conference is designed to discuss best practices, raise awareness and the share experiences among policy makers from the U.S. and Europe.

To the extent that Microsoft can contribute to the discussion of best practices, raising of awareness, etc. pertaining to open source, I don't see why they should be barred from participation. In fact I think their very presence may indirectly contribute to raising of awareness.

Cheers,
Jeremy

Re:absolutely, but...

[cybrangl]

Yes! This is the perfect place for it. There are several reasons 1) The inability for the open source to have an open mind will only prove to many industries that the opensource is not the way to go because they are too set in their ways to be adaptable to their needs 2) If Ms really has such a bad argument, it will be out in the open in such a way they cannot cover it up 3) If they do have valid points, it allows those who have the ability to change the opensource to understand and change the progress of the movement or counter the propaganda before it sets into the corporate culture. If you refuse to listen to those who have differeing opinions then you will be seen as intolerant and unworthy of attention, regardless if you are right or not. It is in the best interest of the community to allow them into the conference.

A little background into the flamewar

[AntiFreeze]

Okay, this flame started on the New York Fair Use mailing list about a week ago.

It started when Rubin Safir (the founder of NYLXS) heard about the eGov conference and the fact that MS would be speaking. As the flame continued, Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, and myself all chimed in.

The majority of the people on the list want to forbid MS from speaking _at_all_costs_.

Basically, they don't like the idea of letting Microsoft talk, and then rebutting MS's arguments via a following speaker and a Q&A session. They say it just gives MS more floor time, which is bad. They have a point, but people will hear MS's FUD, and I would rather people heard it and then heard it debunked. In other words, if MS is going to say anything at all about open source, I want it on _our_ terms and in _our_ forums, not theirs.