Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Representatives Torpedo UN Information Summit
StoneLion writes "The United Nations World Summit on Information Society was established to 'harness the potential of knowledge and technology' and to 'find effective and innovative ways to put this potential at the service of development for all.' You'd think open source software would be a natural for many UN member countries. But NewsForge's Joe Barr discovered that the US is driving policy for the organization, and its official position is that 'using free software to achieve the WSIS goals might get in the way of an intellectual property owner's ability to make a profit'; in other words, they want to make the world safe for capitalism." We've mentioned WSIS before. Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
"Using free software to achieve the WSIS goals might get in the way of an intellectual property owner's ability to make a profit"
Thank you Captain Obvious! Using free software keeps companies that sell software from making a profit on software they don't get to sell. This guy's got to be an economics major...
EVERYDAY IS CATURDAY
Shouldn't Open Source just be considered competition? After all, it's just code. The automakers in Detroit seem to be doing fairly well, even with cheap foreign competition.
The software companies have gotten fat and lazy. Open Source came at them from left field and they still can't figure out how to honestly fight it. That's why they go crying to the politicians after contributing money to their campaigns.
Trolling is a art,
the US is doing the same thing it's always done in the UN -- attempt to provide token participation in a body that is sometimes useful for achieving otherwise-difficult ends, but that can be easily bogged down or otherwise rendered useless when it tries to do something that we don't care for.
I would even go so far as to say this isn't about maintaining capitalist dominance or corporate dominance per se, so much as it is derailing something that could potentially be highly disruptive to the US position as a technological leader and controlling force on third-world technological innovation. Open Source would drastically lower the barrier to entry for pretty much any country looking to develop an information technology regime, which puts countries on a much more even footing to do things the US doesn't like (organize, provide information to people, utilize cryptography, and heavens! even provide a means for impoverished people to have true democracy), let alone making governments more effective. Strict politics-of-power thinking would suggest that other countries having strong, independent governments is not in the US' interests, because such governments and countries (and ultimately, populations) are much harder to manipulate...
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Why do people imagine that free software is a threat to capitalism? Capitalism is based on free markets, which means you can buy or sell whatever you want to without coercion. Giving away things for free is quite compatible with that.
They're putting the "right" of a select few to maintain dictatorship(s) over a section of the world economy that is greater than the GDP of many nations ahead of the right of people to acquire and use free software. (Microsoft's profits rival and exceed the GDP of many countries and apparently the US cares more about this than freedom). In other words, the US is promoting the limitation of freedom in favor of dictatorships over vast areas of the technology sector. They care more about the power of a priveledged few than freedom. The idea that our freedom is being taken away should concern anyone that understands the concept of freedom. If you don't think the idea of software patents is a threat, then you need to do more research. Anyone who argues that this is being done for average Americans should ask themselves the extremely obvious question, "What happens when all of the obvious ideas are patented? How does the little guy or small business enter the market after that?" This is a very obvious question that anyone who has put more than 30 seconds of thought into the idea of software patents should have already asked themselves.
That has nothing to do with capitalism, which has to do with ownership of capital - in the case of software, source code. The GPL socializes software, and could possibly be described as capitalistic in any sense. Profits don't really have anything to do with capitalism per se.
Both open source and closed source can happily live in a capitalistic society. However I do think that closed source and closed standards lead to a monopolistic capitalism, while open source and open standards lead to a free market capitalism. I personally would rather have the free market capitalism, but I don't think we can force a free market to be free, it must free itself. In technology this is what seems to be happening. I hope it continues.
These restrictions do effectively prevent any suggestion of free software, as it may prevent anyone from profiting (except the disadvantaged, of course, but this isn't about them.)
-30-
> In a free and open society, Monopolies are short lived, because people find OTHER WAYS of doing the same thing.
In a place called Euphoria, you may be right, but we do not live in a free and open society. At least not in the sense that our level of "free and open"-ness would prevent a monopoly from taking over a market permanently. As an example, look at what AT&T was to the USA before it was broken up.. the internet never would have flourished as it did if AT&T was still in control of all our phone lines.
And are you saying that the reason we don't have popular alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels is that there isn't just one company in charge of giving us that oil?
I think you place too much faith in the benevolence of corporations. A corporation only changes because it has to in response to market forces. If it controls the market, there is little incentive for change. Corporations do what makes them money, and are not fond of disruptions to whatever process that is. In fact, I would argue that the reason we do not have more popular alternatives to hyrdocarbon fuels is that there are not enough independant companies doing research and trying to find ways to profit from cleaner fuels, not because the few that are in control do not have enough market control to effect that change.
SoI don't agree with your characterization of monopoly forces in the market.
I do agree with your characterization of Open Source, in that it leads to a more efficient society. But that benefit is precisely because there is no monopoly in control. It is because everyone and anyone can have control that it becomes what is good for everyone and anyone. If an Open Source project couldn't be reshaped by someone else into what they deemed proper, we would be in the same position that we are now with [insert monopoly name here], in that we as a society have to take what they give us, and are not presented with alternatives.
Hax.
http://www.haxwell.org
Yes, that's my complaint about the NewsForge article as well. The author wasn't biased enough TOWARDS open source, and did not misrepresent position statements blatantly enough.
The official view, from the mouth of a senior policy advisor, is quoted several paragraphs down in the story: "The U.S. view is that we don't want to see government, or in this case, the World Summit, advocate one type of software over another."
Isn't it better to have more choices than less?
There are three ways to get wealth: inherit it, marry it, or steal it.
Given that most of the wealthy nations of the world got that way through theft of some kind or another: colonial resources, natural (many would say aboriginal) resources, intellectual property (North America in the 19th century, witness China doing the same today) or labour (slavery or equivalents). I suspect the third world may take note of the precedent in their drive to get out of poverty.
We in the west are a little too comfy, I think, with the idea that our priveleges are entirely a product of our own innocently industrious natures. I think we are in for a painful readjustment. Even now countries like China are gathering the capability to put our currencies in the toilet. I am personally hoping it only takes stolen "intellectual" property to get the third world out of poverty.
> but you do need capitalism in order to have a liberal democracy.
Simply not true, and your usage of boldface is not going to change that.
First of all, unless you think that the American system is the only valid 'liberal democracy' possible, you may want to consider that many tribes around the world do not have anythign we'd recognize as an economy, let alone a capitalist one, yet moist definitely have forms of government that can be called a liberal democracy, often way more democratic even then the representative democratic republic that the USA is.
Then there are countries with an economy that has more in common with a communist central planned economy then with capitalism, yet have a government according to liberal democratic principes very similar to those in the USA, for example Sweden.
Does capitalism and liberal democracy go well together? definitely, but that does not prove in any way that one requires the other.
Beware of easy but unsubstantiated conclusions like that, they are often propaganda and have little to do with the truth.
I noticed a fair amount of interpretation going on in this article. Since the UN document seemed rather vague on some points ("Nowhere in the WSIS documents was it deemed permissible to state the obvious: that free/open source software is the logical choice in achieving affordable solutions."), I had to wonder if there was a hidden agenda by the UN going on. Maybe it's just me, but when I read, "harness the potential of knowledge and technology" and "find effective and innovative ways to put this potential at the service of development for all.", I immediately wondered if they were going to give free copies of proprietary software to third-world counties. The arguement would probably be "you're depriving them of software that they can't afford anyway". The comparison to prescription drugs (which, by the way, US companies have agreed to the production of generics in other countries - despite what the article says) didn't make me feel any better because third world countries are clearly ignoring the very idea of intellectual property in creating generics. The only reason it is allowed to happen is because people are dying. On the other hand, software is not a life-or-death product like AIDS drugs. But, by putting them in the same category it makes me think that their thinking is somewhere along the lines that "we should be allowed to ignore software intellectual property rights just like we ignore drug patent intellectual property rights". The two are not the same thing.
My suspicions are only heightened by quotes like this: "We are also fully aware that the benefits of the information technology revolution are today unevenly distributed between the developed and developing countries and within societies. We are fully committed to turning this digital divide into a digital opportunity for all, particularly for those who risk being left behind and being further marginalized." They never actually say it, but I have to wonder if the unspoken next statement is "and that's way we are giving developing nations free copies of this proprietary software".
I think that your confusing capitalism with capitalism. Or maby capitalism. See This
Capitalism is a vauge term, and as such it really does not mean much, unless in context. Are you talking about free markets? or are you talking about private ownership of capital goods?(things you need to produce stuff). The wage system definition does not seem to fit your use here, so that is probably not it.
The sense that the US UN rep is using the term is catital goods ownership, or in other words keeping a certain capital good still profitable, (closed source software, the source is arguably a capital good, just try and compile Windows without the Windows source code) The Rep. is most certainly not using capitalism to mean free markets, because open source is no threat to free markets. Quite the contrary.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Copyright and patents are meant to bring knowlege into the public domain, not to perpetuate monopolistic gouging.
>>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
Like when "Saddam threw out the inspectors", although CNN news from the time says that the US advised inspectors to leave because the US might start bombing Iraq?
Forget your US propaganda, even the inspectors themselves were suprised with the cooperation they got from the Iraq, it was much better than expected. And as the US is still proving, those weapons they were looking for had already been destroyed as ordered by the UN.
Actually, it is the current US government that has been shown to be a farce in the Iraq war, with their exagerated claims, and as a final humiliation, ending up begging the UN to clean up their mess in Iraq afterwards.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
I'd say Sweden has pretty much a state run economy, but definitely counts as a democracy in the rules you set.
Sweden is a democracy, no doubt about that. They also have a huge welfare state and lot of state owned enterprises. To further support your point I have to admit that in Sweden it's the government that is spending 57% of GDP (source: Federal dep. of finance; OECD). That's still some 43% left to spend by the private sector, not to mention that the government is also getting the benefits of the free marker (e.g. cometetion driving down costs - yeah in theory, but it usually does work).
I'd see Iran as a democracy (abeit far from perfect) as well btw, the fact that the political struggle that is going on there can happen at all is proof enough for that.
I don't see a country where some non-elected authority (some ayatollah in Iran's case) can decide who's allowd to stand in an election and who's not. It was a common practice in the former Soviet satelite states that they held elections every couple of years but the Communist party had to approve of all the candidates. I wouldn't call those countries democratic. But that may be just me.
Also, there is a lot more to liberal democracy than just elections. For example independent and free media (Russia seems to failing that one) and reasonably just and effective courts.
(oh, and realize that in the USA you are getting a very discolored picture of Iran)
I wouldn't know what picture of Iran are the people in the USA getting. I don't live anywhere nearer the US than most Europeans. Anyway, I gave you my reasons for disqualifying Iran, you may have your reasons for not considering my criteria relevant.
1) Iraq Death Toll
The Age.
And yeah, there are mass graves, lots of them. But do we right a wrong by killing more people? It's easy to win a war, but much harder to win the peace. There's also a very good reason the humanitarian argument for invasion wasn't used before the war. Because it would have directly led to the argument why the US was invading Iraq rather than a dozen other countries with worse human-rights records.
2) We know Iraq had WMD, US supplied them and the UN destroyed them. The question is whether Iraq had a WMD program capable of threatening the US or surrounding countries. These things aren't easy to hide. You require facilities, research papers, scientists, engineers, factories. The fact that these have not been found indicates that Iraq wasn't a threat. After all, Saddam could have ordered the destruction, but with a realistic weapons program, traces of evidence will be left behind. Soil samples tainted, research papers unburnt, people willing to talk for a new life in the US. You can't just dig a hole and hide a weapons program that was supposedly a threat to the world.
Anyway, you can't prove the non-existence of something. There's anthrax in soil, but there's a big difference between having a small sample of anthrax and having a weaponised anthrax along with the weapons systems to target, launch and the personnel to run it.
Anyway, where's your evidence? David Kay seems to disagree with you multiple times.
3) I'm unsure, about this, someone else would have to answer this.
4a) Okay, again, you want me to prove evidence that something doesn't exist. That's impossible. Saddam did provide some evidence of the destruction of some of the weapons, he simply couldn't provide all the evidence. That seems realistic to me, records get lost, misprinted, mislaid, incorrectly filed, not filed at all. Lack of evidence of destruction does not equate to no destruction occuring.
4b) Oh, do you mean "Ansar al-Islam"? A terrorist group situated in non Saddam-controlled Iraq, you know, the northern no-fly zone. With doubts whether there are actually any real links between Saddam and terrorist groups here and here.
5) No, there's ill-will in Australia (and UK and Spain) and our government entered the war even though the majority of public opinion and the parliament opposed the war. Secondly, France and especially Germany has historically been relatively pro-American. France may not be bending over friendly, but they've always been relatively friendly.