Slashdot Mirror
MS Has Free Software Removed From U.N. Paper
linumax writes "Microsoft asked for references to free software to be removed from a document presented at last week's UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference, the software giant admitted on Friday. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is unhappy that the document was changed and claims that even though it was on the panel discussing the document, it was not made aware of Microsoft's changes. The document (2.8MB PDF), known as the Vienna Conclusions, discusses issues around IT and creativity. The original draft of the document discussed how the free software model is changing the way people do business."
This is the same UN that should run the DNS root servers since they would be more independent than ICANN?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Don't be fooled by those "market power should not be used to dominate and restrict the free exchange of ideas", this phrase can mean of anyone but established content providers.
Immediately followed by...
ICT x Monopolies = Digital Divide This document is moronic and it's authors are nothing but paying lip service to their sponsors, Corporate America.
And the UN asks Microsoft to not allow old document revisions to be viewed from a MS-Word file. The redacted information on the Oil-for-Food report was really embarassing to Kofi Annan (especially since MS-Word showed that the changes occured at the same time as a late night meeting with Annan and Volckner).
If MS stops altering the UN reports, then the UN will alter the report on free software.
And it's also yet anothing silent but glaring admission my Microsoft that they are VERY concerned about what is happening in the Free/Open software world. Perhaps they realize that there are several fronts they can't compete on with FOSS and would rather expunge it from view instead of, oh I don't know... COMPETING? Personally, I think competition is overrated and would rather see a more centralized system of forced cooperation by a world government. But that's just me... ;p Since a lot of you yahoos here are into "competition", what do you have to say for your capitalist masters Microsoft? (BTW... I'm not a commie either) And one last thing. Bill Gates... fuck you yet again.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
What the FSCK is the UN worth if they're dancing to the tune of a stupid company? Apparently they have no opinions of their own. It's time to either dissolve this party of make it meaner and leaner.
-- Cheers!
However, living in a world of new digital economy does not mean that one can break all business rules. ... The rights of creators and the protection of their intellectual property require permission and compensations ... Quality contents should pay back their creators; and not just the intermediaries. They ought not to be nor should they be seen as being available for free. Such appearances are demeaning to creators and producers, authors and developers, and they deny them the fruits of their efforts and work.
/. too smart to fall for that little diversion, aren't we?
This was extracted from the document under discussion. I would have expected this forum to be much more upset about this transparent advocacy of DRM than it would be about some trifling changes regarding free software. If I didn't know better I might think the disclosure that Microsoft had the "free software" language stricken from the document was done deliberately to draw attention away from it's other content. But we in
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
"Microsoft asked for references to free software to be removed from a document presented at last week's UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference, the software giant admitted on Friday"
Which was worse? The fact that Microsoft askef for it to be removed or the fact that the UN happily agreed to it?
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
So where is the original draft? Why doesn't some unhappy person release it on the web with a side-by-side comparison to the final draft? Done this way it should truly embarass someone.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
By services, they mean that you aren't buying the physical software, you're buying the service that this software performs. Whether it be a one time fee, or a subscription. It's not a service contract to keep the software working.
No.
If companies like Microsoft can change an official U.N. paper so easily, there is no way ordinary (non-geek) people will even know about Open Source alternatives. And everything that is propagated as "free" (either as in speech or as in beer) is considered "dangerous" (like: "there is no way software can be free, it MUST contain spyware or some other malicious threat. Microsoft says so!")
Really, I hear these things every damned day. I have a really hard time telling people that installing Win XP instead of Win 2k on their PII-233 is NOT making their PC run faster, so no one on earth is going to convince these people to use or trust OSS (unless you can teach them the difference between OSS and Freeware).
There are two options left, both have their problems: play dirty (DDoS-ing windows.com, releasing viri that attack Win-XP boxen etc) and decent marketing (some money-problems there...). Firefox is doing great using the latter technique, But I'll confess that I feal attracted to the first on days like this.
I really think the OSS-movement needs one body with some serious money that play the marketing trick on the world. And I also think that is not going to happen if "we" can't settle debates like "vi vs emacs", "GPL vs BSD", "KDE vs GNOME" and "linux vs BSD".
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
He who controls the past, controls the future;
he who controls the present, controls the past
And he who can have reports and news stories edited on a whim, controls the present.
9. Refer all charity organizations and any group strapped for cash to Linux. Every year when my kid's school does parent-teacher conferences, I never fail to bring up open-source after the teachers mention school budget cutbacks. (there's always a good opportunity to work that in when the teachers apologize for not getting the reports printed out because XP crashed - again!)
8. Drop IE-compatibility from your websites. Use this: http://www.stopie.com/stopie/home/ which will refer viewers to download Firefox. Aren't you tired of having to make your website botched up just to work for the lamest browser on the web, anyway?
7. Earn money by referring people to Firefox with Google toolbar while you're at it: http://downhillbattle.org/node/view/554 Who *says* there's no money in free software?
6. Go to the Ubuntu site - the page where you can order an Ubuntu disk sent to you for free - and fill in RANDOM ADDRESSES. Mystery gifts from the software fairy.
5. Anybody with a CD burner and a Linux fetish will have old Linux CDs they don't use anymore - like when you've updated to the new version. Take these CDs with you to the library, and tuck them into the Windows books in the computer books section.
4. While you're in the library, be sure to fill out those request/suggestion forms for new books to buy with the latest Linux books you're just dying to check out - and hasn't "DOS for Dummies" and "Windows 3.1 - the complete reference" gotten old, anyway?
3. Never pass a computer store without walking in and asking for software titles that run on Linux. The idea is to make them aware that Linux users *would* spend *some* money, if only anybody cared to do business with us.
2. Teach your kids Linux. This is the easiest - kids will absorb Linux like little sponges, all you have to do is install it and stand back.
1. Go to second-hand stores such as Salvation Army and Goodwill. Find a used computer on sale plugged in and running. Stick Knoppix on it. Reboot it. Walk away whistling. Trust me, I've spoken to employee and customer alike at these places - nobody would ever know the difference!
The first sentence sounds like an acknowledgement that selling software and software copyrights are dying, and that we're moving to a business model where the software is free, but we pay for extra services; e.g. the online component of a computer game.
The second sentence on the other hand, sounds like a Microsoft dream come true, with everyone buying their software, and paying for the extra services as well.
I think it's a big difference.
Do the math:
Amount of campaign contributions made by FSF: $0
Amount of campaign contributions made by Microsoft: > $0
We elect our leaders and they appoint people who make decisions. Why do you continue to expect them to benefit you, who contributed $0 to the winning party, if the opposite decisions are desired by people/entities that contributed?
Think of it this way: politicians and those they appoint want to keep their jobs. They will help those that contribute to them keeping their jobs instead of strangers who didn't contribute at all.
What is your goal? To remain poor and whine about injustices? Or to get rich and use your wealth to fight injustices?
Right now, our world is ruled by wealthy campaign contributors that are addicted to entitlements that are not available to the general public. Remember the good ole days when we were focused on cutting welfare for lazy poor people? Why the heck aren't we focused on cutting welfare for the wealthy? If most jobs are created by small businesses, why are most of the tax breaks going to a handful of large multi-national corporations?
You know the answer. The small handful are well-organized, well-funded, and highly focused on helping politicians get elected while the general public is distracted by abortion, religion, gays and other matters. We are distracted while they attempt to rape social security which we EARNED and PAID INTO.
If you want to change the world, objectively look at how the game is played and do something effective instead of whining. Focus on getting rich first (fix up your own damned life first), then use your wealth to make a difference. To remain poor out of laziness or out of a desire to feel self-righteous is extremely selfish if you live in a country where wealth-creation is available to anyone who focuses on that goal.
An entitlement-addicted society was annoying when those who received entitlements were dirt poor--when those receiving entitlements are filthy rich, it is absolutely disgusting. Do something about it by getting rich and getting the right people elected. You can't do this if your own life is a mess.
Former Microsoftie Here.
There are certainly clever execs at Microsoft. I am not denying this. I will also say I agree about the general tone of "a coherent strategy is still being developed" bit. Indeed I figure it should be 2-4 more years before Microsoft has a real plan to deal with Linux beyond the current holding pattern.
However, this move was a serious blunder and is going to come back to haunt them, I fear. Indeed, one wonders if at some point they get sued over anticomeptitive behavior against Linux and OpenOffice, if this will be presented as evidence of anticompetitive behavior. IANAL though.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
This says far more about the U.N. than it says about Microsoft.
I was wondering when someone would point that out.
And a second question I have is: Why did the UN guys go along with it? When MS told them to make changes, why didn't they just say "Who are you to order us around?"
What sort of hold does MS have over the UN guys? Why didn't the UN just publish the report as written?
Anyone know?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.