Slashdot Mirror
The Software Politics Of 2004's Presidential Race
mjamil writes "The NYT(free registration required) has an article talking about the polarized use of OSS in the building of campaign Web sites. Specifically, it states that the sites for John Kerry (Democratic candidate for President) and the Democratic National Committee are built using OSS, while the site for President Bush's re-election campaign uses IIS. Linus and ESR are quoted. It's an interesting look at how even presidential politics are no longer immune to the free software war (free as in beer)." (David Brunton, pictured in the article, wrote to say "Now I'm going to go call my mom... won't she be proud? For all those girl geeks and gay geeks out there, I'm already taken, but it is an awful nice picture, isn't it?")
In a campaign season of polarization, when Republicans and Democrats seem far apart on issues like Iraq, the economy and leadership style, it is perhaps not surprising that the parties find themselves on different sides in the politics of software as well.
The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.
In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.
The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights.
Many of them propose rewriting intellectual property laws worldwide to limit their scope and duration. The open-source path, they insist, should accelerate the pace of innovation and promote long-term economic growth. Theirs is an argument of efficiency, but also of a reshuffling of corporate wealth.
Microsoft and other American companies, by contrast, have long argued that intellectual property is responsible for any edge the United States has in an increasingly competitive global economy. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer and a senior strategist at Microsoft, observed, "Whether copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term and create sustainable business models."
The dispute can take on a political flavor at times. David Brunton, who is a founder of Plus Three, a technology and marketing consulting company that has done much of the work on the Democratic and Kerry Web sites, regards open-source software as a technological expression of his political beliefs. Mr. Brunton, 28, a Harvard graduate, describes himself as a "very left-leaning Democrat." He met his wife, Lina, through politics; she is a staff member at the Democratic National Committee.
His company's client list includes state Democratic parties in Ohio and Missouri, and union groups including the United Federation of Teachers and the parent A.F.L.-C.I.O. "The ethic of open source has pervaded progressive organizations," Mr. Brunton said.
The corporate proponents of strong intellectual property rights say, in essence, that what is good for Microsoft, Merck and Disney is good for America. But they argue as well that the laws that protect them also protect the ideas of upstart innovators. They have made their case forcefully in Washington and before international groups, notably the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations specialized agency.
"This is a huge ideological debate and it goes way beyond software," said James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, a nonprofit group affiliated with Ralph Nader that advocates less restrictive intellectual property rules.
But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.
Still, those who find the cooperative, open-source ethos appealing tend most often to be libertarians, populists and progressives. Not surprisingly, open-source software was well represented in Howard Dean's Democratic presidential primary campaign, which so effectively used the Internet and Web logs in grass-roots organizing.
Those open-source advocates will presumably find Senator Kerry more appeal
Its in the slashdot FAQ, but basically there are 2 types of "free" in the english language - free as in beer and freedom - the debate is always on as to the meaning of "free" software:
Free as in beer - costs no money
Freedom - no (or not many) restrictions on it. I.e. opensource software may be thought of as "free" because you are (usually) entitled to modify and redistribute the software to suit your purposes, so long as you follow some basic rules.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
I guess it's good time to keep our eyes on what Microsoft gives to political parties.
The word "free" can mean more than one thing in the english language. In order to explain the meaning of the word "free" you can append a short explanaition, such as "as in beer" or "as in speech".
Free (as in beer) means that the product/service in question can be obtained/used without you having to pay money for it. This is perhaps the most common use of the word in the daily language.
Free (as in speech) is a phrase only valid when discussing information. Free (as in speech) means that the information in question doesn't have a copyright restriction appended it (or similar).
On slashdot, the most common subject of discussion is software. Just like a song, a software program can be free-as-in-beer, free-as-in-speech or both. The idea of OSS is that software should be free (as in speech), so that you are legally allowed to modify, complement, extend, etc. it.
Just because a piece of software is free (as in speech) does not mean that it has no restrictions in how it can be handled. Examples of restrictions are:
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Hmmm, I actually remember it being the other way as you state it. GWB with IIS and Gore with Apache. Gore was the one to support the anti-trust case against MS while talking to the people at MS.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
That's spot on. NPR did a story on this about a month ago, and as it turns out, Kerry's site was only using OSS because the people (either hired or volunteer) that designed and implemented the site were fans and users of OSS themselves. Kerry himself had no direct input into the matter.
"... and you know it's dependable, 'cause it's made by Microsoft."
It's redundant because the 0th comment (the f-ing article) covered it.
From the NYT link:
Told that the Democratic National Committee Web site runs on open-source software, Tony Welch, the national committee's press secretary, replied, "Oh, thanks for telling me." Later, after checking with his technical staff, Mr. Welch called back to say that open-source software was "the right technology at the right price."
Besides, if you can't figure out how to register with the NYT w/o giving up any real info, you've got bigger problems.
I think I need a new sig here.
i) DMCA doesn't really limit your freedom does it? Draconian "homeland security" laws limit your freedom. Your government's paranoia limits your freedom. Go and tell people in Burma how the DMCA limits your freedom.
So you wouldn't mind if I stole $1000 from you, I presume. I mean, stealing $1000 doesn't really hurt the average American, does it? Go and tell those people in the third world who are trying to scratch a living on a dollar a day how someone stealing $1000 from your bank account hurts you.
ii) How can MS hold back an entire industry when your OSS people are free to innovate all they want?
The existence of a superior solution at a lower price does not automatically mean it will be adopted. In the hypothetical case that MS were using their huge cash reserves to bribe IT managers to choose Microsoft products, for example, it wouldn't matter how good Linux was - Microsoft would be chosen.
I'm not claiming that's happening for a moment - I'm just answering your question. It's a possible way.
iii) fair point. But I feel you are being a little naive if you don't believe Kerry will be *almost* as subservient to big business as Bush.
An equally fair point. But it remains the case that you should pick the lesser of two evils, even if that means you're still getting an evil.
Linux does *not* preserve my freedom. If linux disappeared tomorrow, the world would not blink. 95% of the world's population have never heard of it, and if someone told them about it, they wouldn't care. IT'S JUST A COMPUTER PROGRAM and it WILL NOT change the world.
MS-DOS was just a computer program, of which at least 90% of the world's population have still never heard, and that changed the world - by helping personal computers to become commodities.
Now Linux is changing the world, by helping people in third-world countries to gain access to cheap computers.
Just because you haven't noticed the difference, doesn't mean the world is still the same.
As someone who has a NYT registration, I have to say that I've never recieved [noticed?] a single bit of spam coming as a result of said registration.
Who doesn't like free music?