I actually think I can address both with one comment which is why I respectfully disagree with your points.
While it is commendable that they are taking action to improve the process, that does not address the possible damage done, which is two-fold. The improvements are of the classic "closing the barn after the horses have left" variety.
1. Comments that were submitted in one forum have already been passed into a different forum. The corrective action does not address the potential for very real damage that I as a poster may face from those comments being circulated in that different forum. While I agree with the sentiment that it is important to get the "truth" out there, when I posted my "truth" I am taking a calucalted risk regarding retribution that I will face. Moving my comments to a different forum changes that risk calucation in a way that I was not aware of, and may raise the level of risk so high that I would not want to assume that risk. People die for their truth every day, and taking this action without the consent of the posters beforehand makes the decision for others. Saying "well do it differently next time" does me not one whit of good if I suffer consequences from this episode. Again, the move to improve is commendable, but in reality there are things that "sorry" does not fix...and this is clearly a situation where this could occur. It is simply thoughtless on the part of Mr. Katz et al.
2. The proceeds of the sale of this book are going to charity. This also was not made clear before-hand. Again, while it is commendable that no one is profiting personally from this, someone or some group is going to profit. Not everyone will agree with the charity chosen. Again, the individual's right to choose has been violated. I personally am particularly distressed by this because I am ethically opposed to charity services for humans.
All things considered, this is not the worst it could be. But, in a way, that's what makes it worse, for these actions were taken, I believe, with the best of intentions. Sometimes, though, these actions are the worst of all.
While I see the good intentions behind this, I think you have erred gravely.
Is what you did illegal? Hard to say...you've hit a new, untested area. Who owns the site in aggregate and who own components of the site, such as poster comments? Hard to say, it would take years of legal haggling.
Stepping back from the legal to the ethical, though, I think it is clear that you erred.
People posted comments in the context of/.. They reasonably expected that it would be part of the site and part of the on-going discussion.
By publishing this in a book, you've changed the context entirely to one that people did not expect and had no chance to make a choice on. If in posting I knew that you would be putting my comments in a book, that MAY have influenced me to make a different decision.
While you are taking the high road and not profiting personally, someone will profit from the content that these posters have made for you. What if they disagree with the charity you choose? What if they disagree, like I do, with the concept of charity for other humans altogether?
I see the good intent, but you have slid inadvertently down the road to hell with your book on the Hellmouth.
Mainly, because it has brought to light an inherent hypocrisy in Mr. Raymond's thinking and, perhaps, in the Open Source community.
If Open Source is to be "free", then it cannot put limitations on those who would approach it and use it. To be truly free, Open Source must allow everyone, even those whom we may view as evil (China, Microsoft, Nazis etc.) equal access and participation.
Unfortunately, this article shows that there is not true, unconditional freedom in Open Source. Rather, there is freedom only for those who meet certain criteria (Do you hate Microsoft, do you hate China, etc.). This is, in effect, another manifestation of "All Animals are Equal, but Some Animals are More Equal than Others" and is not substantively different from asking "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?". If you answer wrongly, the door is shut and barred against you. Let me ask this hypothetical question, would Mr. Raymond move to ban additions to LINUX from Microsoft, if they followed the rules? I think the answer, from this article and other statements he has made, would be 'yes'. Even if he did not ban them, I think it is a safe assertion from the tone on these boards that others would make it their life's goal to drive them away.
In a way, it can be argued that this is a manifestation of the same strain that we see as a vexing element in GPL. GPL, I would argue, while well intentioned, is inherently totalitarian in execution, because it prohibits one from releasing anything that is less "free" than GPL. Doesn't true freedom of action have to allow one total freedom of action, even if that freedom results in actions we don't agree with? Mr. Stallman has said, in a recent interview, that your 'freedom' ends at my nose, in effect saying that you are free as long as you don't coerce or harm me. But GPL is inherently coercive by dictating another's behavior. If I make changes to code I have obtained using GPL, I am not impeding your access to the code to which I had access, I am impeding your access to the code which I have derived from it. Thus, you still have your space, and I mine, but the GPL is dictating how to use my space. The GPL, and this statement, return to a conception of freedom that is basically, you are free, as long as you do what WE think you should do with freedom. And that conditional freedom, is, by its very nature, not freedom.
The policies of the Government of China are irrelevant from the strict standpoint of Open Source computing. They are relevant in other areas, but not this. If they contribute, follow the license meticulously, and do everything by the book, then their participation cannot, in good conscience, be excluded. The same would be true if the American Nazi Party wanted to contribute, the PLO, the IRA, or the Abortion Rights Action League or President Clinton for that matter. As long as they follow the rules, there is no basis for excluding them. Equal access means just that, even if we have to share the space with people whose views in other areas and contexts we find odious.
I would strongly recommend reading "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrick Hayek for an excellent analysis and exposition of how well-intentioned attempts to "guide" freedom ultimately lead to totalitarianism. I would argue, based on this article in particular, that Open Source MAY be heading down the road to serfdom.
With all due respect, it is a passionate article, but I believe the author is focusing his attention on an effect as a cause, though the call for a good browser for LINUX is nonetheless an excellent suggestion.
I would argue that the situation with browser incompatibly is an effect of a prior cause. That prior cause, I would argue is that sites are being constructed which use proprietary, platform-specific "plug-ins" or proprietary extensions to Internet standards. If those did not exist, his browser dilemma would be non-existent.
If that is indeed the root cause of this situation, then I would ask, why would developers use software or features that effectively limit the viewing audience? Clearly, it is in their best interest to make their sites accessible to all. This, of course, excepts those companies and their associated entities who have a vested commercial interest in propagating their proprietary software and features such as Netscape, Sun, Microsoft, to name a few. It is akin to television and the broadcast signal: ABC would be foolish to make it impossible for owners of Sony televisions to view their programs, though Sony would have an interest in making it impossible for anyone without a Sony to view their programs. Why would the ABC site use features that "lock out" some users for all intents and purposes? There must be a compelling reason to use Netscape specific-tags knowing that it will have an adverse effect on some segment of the viewing population.
What is driving the decisions of these site creators is a need for functionality that is only available in proprietary tools. No one willingly (with the exceptions noted above) makes a decision to lock out any segment of the viewing public unless they have to. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of how much of a return they will get from the 90% of the public that can view their site versus how much of a loss they will take from the 10% of the public that cannot view their site. If it is faster to get functionality to a majority or plurality with acceptable returns, then site creators go in that direction. Certainly, it would be better to get to 100% of the public, but do you wait until the standard is released or do you calculate your acceptable loss ratio and move forward with the proprietary solution?
In effect, what is creating this situation is that proprietary software is faster to deploy and has features that the standards lack. Standards are established through a long, torturous process of negotiation between vendors and thus inherently slower to be established. You have more features available using Netscape specific tags than using "pure" W3C HTML and developers flock to the features. Netscape creates its features by fiat; W3C through negotiation. It is the same difference between unilateral action and multi-lateral action: the former is always more decisive because there is a unity of purpose which the latter lacks. Churchill noted that "a camel is a horse designed by committee" and there is truth in that. An individual (person, company, country) can always act faster than a group (of people, of companies, of countries).
Building a better browser for LINUX is not, per se, going to allow the author's wife to remove her Windows machine. It will help generate a stronger LINUX market and encourage sites to use LINUX specific proprietary software rather than or in addition to Windows specific and Mac specific software. But, someone will always be left out in the cold because the proprietary software evolves faster than standards-based software, though it may be AS/400 users, Amiga Users, or WebTV users. In the end, the problem the author identifies is not the lack of a LINUX browser, but the fundamental difference between proprietary software and standards-based software evolution.
This is a VERY serious issue. We cannot accept a patch and let this blow over.
This was a trojan horse that performed an unauthroized scan of your HD and sent the data back to Real. Let's turn the tables a moment and suppose that an individual had done this to one of Real's servers? They would be pursuing legal redress (as well they should). To let Real off the hook now that they've issued a patch is to forfeit the battle for privacy.
Real has basically said "we're sorry we got caught". They are not sorry for what they did. If they were, the CEO would resign in disgrace.
Boycott RealNetworks products permanently. If you owned their jukebox, contact a lawyer and file suit against them for "hacking" your system. File a complaint with the FBI.
This is the first instance of this type of behavior of which I am aware, and we all need to make an example of it. Accepting an insincere apology and patch lets them off too easily and will implicitly encourage others to follow suit, since the penatly is something most companies can live with. Unless we cause RealNetworks true pain, then we have just lost a crucial battle.
If one were to obey this law, then how is the decision made as to what sites an Australian citizen can view? In other words, is the Australian Government publishing a list of sites prohibited to its citizens? Or, does NetNanny compile a mandatory list? Or, do you have to run the software, but you decide what level of filtering?
For the record, I am VERY troubled by this. It is one thing for China or Taiwan to throttle content as they have; their governments are authoritarian and there is not the expectation of liberty as we find in the countries with a shared legal history with England (i.e. US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ). If one of these "peers" succumbs to this level of authority, then it will be very easy for other peers to succumb as well ("But, Australia does it, and they're a democracy just like us, so see, it's not bad.")
On behalf of myself, at least, if I as an American have not been supportive of my esteemed peers in Australia, it is simply because this is the first I've heard about this. It has not even made it into the Economist, which I read religiously.
We should all be frightened by this. Very much so. As Australia goes on this, so too might we all. And, to take an American perspective, the Religious Right would LOVE this: a chance to centrally dictate and control morality with technology. Next stop, implants which monitor behavior constantly and sends SNMP traps to the FBI alerting them to illegal/immoral behavior? It very well could be.
AOL buying Netscape is like putting a frog in a pot of water and then slowly turning up the heat. I won't know that it's being killed.
Of course Sun (who seems to be in control of the servers) is going to 86 officially or unofficially everything but Solaris. They want to move boxes.
I think the renaming of everything (except the browser) to iPlanet sums it all up. Netscape is gone, they just don't know it yet. For all intents and purposes, they are part of Sun.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you both for your replies.
I actually think I can address both with one comment which is why I respectfully disagree with your points.
While it is commendable that they are taking action to improve the process, that does not address the possible damage done, which is two-fold. The improvements are of the classic "closing the barn after the horses have left" variety.
1. Comments that were submitted in one forum have already been passed into a different forum. The corrective action does not address the potential for very real damage that I as a poster may face from those comments being circulated in that different forum. While I agree with the sentiment that it is important to get the "truth" out there, when I posted my "truth" I am taking a calucalted risk regarding retribution that I will face. Moving my comments to a different forum changes that risk calucation in a way that I was not aware of, and may raise the level of risk so high that I would not want to assume that risk. People die for their truth every day, and taking this action without the consent of the posters beforehand makes the decision for others. Saying "well do it differently next time" does me not one whit of good if I suffer consequences from this episode. Again, the move to improve is commendable, but in reality there are things that "sorry" does not fix...and this is clearly a situation where this could occur. It is simply thoughtless on the part of Mr. Katz et al.
2. The proceeds of the sale of this book are going to charity. This also was not made clear before-hand. Again, while it is commendable that no one is profiting personally from this, someone or some group is going to profit. Not everyone will agree with the charity chosen. Again, the individual's right to choose has been violated. I personally am particularly distressed by this because I am ethically opposed to charity services for humans.
All things considered, this is not the worst it could be. But, in a way, that's what makes it worse, for these actions were taken, I believe, with the best of intentions. Sometimes, though, these actions are the worst of all.
Gentlemen,
/.. They reasonably expected that it would be part of the site and part of the on-going discussion.
While I see the good intentions behind this, I think you have erred gravely.
Is what you did illegal? Hard to say...you've hit a new, untested area. Who owns the site in aggregate and who own components of the site, such as poster comments? Hard to say, it would take years of legal haggling.
Stepping back from the legal to the ethical, though, I think it is clear that you erred.
People posted comments in the context of
By publishing this in a book, you've changed the context entirely to one that people did not expect and had no chance to make a choice on. If in posting I knew that you would be putting my comments in a book, that MAY have influenced me to make a different decision.
While you are taking the high road and not profiting personally, someone will profit from the content that these posters have made for you. What if they disagree with the charity you choose? What if they disagree, like I do, with the concept of charity for other humans altogether?
I see the good intent, but you have slid inadvertently down the road to hell with your book on the Hellmouth.
This is a very interesting article indeed.
Mainly, because it has brought to light an inherent hypocrisy in Mr. Raymond's thinking and, perhaps, in the Open Source community.
If Open Source is to be "free", then it cannot put limitations on those who would approach it and use it. To be truly free, Open Source must allow everyone, even those whom we may view as evil (China, Microsoft, Nazis etc.) equal access and participation.
Unfortunately, this article shows that there is not true, unconditional freedom in Open Source. Rather, there is freedom only for those who meet certain criteria (Do you hate Microsoft, do you hate China, etc.). This is, in effect, another manifestation of "All Animals are Equal, but Some Animals are More Equal than Others" and is not substantively different from asking "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?". If you answer wrongly, the door is shut and barred against you. Let me ask this hypothetical question, would Mr. Raymond move to ban additions to LINUX from Microsoft, if they followed the rules? I think the answer, from this article and other statements he has made, would be 'yes'. Even if he did not ban them, I think it is a safe assertion from the tone on these boards that others would make it their life's goal to drive them away.
In a way, it can be argued that this is a manifestation of the same strain that we see as a vexing element in GPL. GPL, I would argue, while well intentioned, is inherently totalitarian in execution, because it prohibits one from releasing anything that is less "free" than GPL. Doesn't true freedom of action have to allow one total freedom of action, even if that freedom results in actions we don't agree with? Mr. Stallman has said, in a recent interview, that your 'freedom' ends at my nose, in effect saying that you are free as long as you don't coerce or harm me. But GPL is inherently coercive by dictating another's behavior. If I make changes to code I have obtained using GPL, I am not impeding your access to the code to which I had access, I am impeding your access to the code which I have derived from it. Thus, you still have your space, and I mine, but the GPL is dictating how to use my space. The GPL, and this statement, return to a conception of freedom that is basically, you are free, as long as you do what WE think you should do with freedom. And that conditional freedom, is, by its very nature, not freedom.
The policies of the Government of China are irrelevant from the strict standpoint of Open Source computing. They are relevant in other areas, but not this. If they contribute, follow the license meticulously, and do everything by the book, then their participation cannot, in good conscience, be excluded. The same would be true if the American Nazi Party wanted to contribute, the PLO, the IRA, or the Abortion Rights Action League or President Clinton for that matter. As long as they follow the rules, there is no basis for excluding them. Equal access means just that, even if we have to share the space with people whose views in other areas and contexts we find odious.
I would strongly recommend reading "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrick Hayek for an excellent analysis and exposition of how well-intentioned attempts to "guide" freedom ultimately lead to totalitarianism. I would argue, based on this article in particular, that Open Source MAY be heading down the road to serfdom.
I humbly beg to differ on a crucial supposition.
With all due respect, it is a passionate article, but I believe the author is focusing his attention on an effect as a cause, though the call for a good browser for LINUX is nonetheless an excellent suggestion.
I would argue that the situation with browser incompatibly is an effect of a prior cause. That prior cause, I would argue is that sites are being constructed which use proprietary, platform-specific "plug-ins" or proprietary extensions to Internet standards. If those did not exist, his browser dilemma would be non-existent.
If that is indeed the root cause of this situation, then I would ask, why would developers use software or features that effectively limit the viewing audience? Clearly, it is in their best interest to make their sites accessible to all. This, of course, excepts those companies and their associated entities who have a vested commercial interest in propagating their proprietary software and features such as Netscape, Sun, Microsoft, to name a few. It is akin to television and the broadcast signal: ABC would be foolish to make it impossible for owners of Sony televisions to view their programs, though Sony would have an interest in making it impossible for anyone without a Sony to view their programs. Why would the ABC site use features that "lock out" some users for all intents and purposes? There must be a compelling reason to use Netscape specific-tags knowing that it will have an adverse effect on some segment of the viewing population.
What is driving the decisions of these site creators is a need for functionality that is only available in proprietary tools. No one willingly (with the exceptions noted above) makes a decision to lock out any segment of the viewing public unless they have to. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of how much of a return they will get from the 90% of the public that can view their site versus how much of a loss they will take from the 10% of the public that cannot view their site. If it is faster to get functionality to a majority or plurality with acceptable returns, then site creators go in that direction. Certainly, it would be better to get to 100% of the public, but do you wait until the standard is released or do you calculate your acceptable loss ratio and move forward with the proprietary solution?
In effect, what is creating this situation is that proprietary software is faster to deploy and has features that the standards lack. Standards are established through a long, torturous process of negotiation between vendors and thus inherently slower to be established. You have more features available using Netscape specific tags than using "pure" W3C HTML and developers flock to the features. Netscape creates its features by fiat; W3C through negotiation. It is the same difference between unilateral action and multi-lateral action: the former is always more decisive because there is a unity of purpose which the latter lacks. Churchill noted that "a camel is a horse designed by committee" and there is truth in that. An individual (person, company, country) can always act faster than a group (of people, of companies, of countries).
Building a better browser for LINUX is not, per se, going to allow the author's wife to remove her Windows machine. It will help generate a stronger LINUX market and encourage sites to use LINUX specific proprietary software rather than or in addition to Windows specific and Mac specific software. But, someone will always be left out in the cold because the proprietary software evolves faster than standards-based software, though it may be AS/400 users, Amiga Users, or WebTV users. In the end, the problem the author identifies is not the lack of a LINUX browser, but the fundamental difference between proprietary software and standards-based software evolution.
This is a VERY serious issue. We cannot accept a patch and let this blow over.
This was a trojan horse that performed an unauthroized scan of your HD and sent the data back to Real. Let's turn the tables a moment and suppose that an individual had done this to one of Real's servers? They would be pursuing legal redress (as well they should). To let Real off the hook now that they've issued a patch is to forfeit the battle for privacy.
Real has basically said "we're sorry we got caught". They are not sorry for what they did. If they were, the CEO would resign in disgrace.
Boycott RealNetworks products permanently. If you owned their jukebox, contact a lawyer and file suit against them for "hacking" your system. File a complaint with the FBI.
This is the first instance of this type of behavior of which I am aware, and we all need to make an example of it. Accepting an insincere apology and patch lets them off too easily and will implicitly encourage others to follow suit, since the penatly is something most companies can live with. Unless we cause RealNetworks true pain, then we have just lost a crucial battle.
Could someone please fill in the details for me?
If one were to obey this law, then how is the decision made as to what sites an Australian citizen can view? In other words, is the Australian Government publishing a list of sites prohibited to its citizens? Or, does NetNanny compile a mandatory list? Or, do you have to run the software, but you decide what level of filtering?
For the record, I am VERY troubled by this. It is one thing for China or Taiwan to throttle content as they have; their governments are authoritarian and there is not the expectation of liberty as we find in the countries with a shared legal history with England (i.e. US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, NZ). If one of these "peers" succumbs to this level of authority, then it will be very easy for other peers to succumb as well ("But, Australia does it, and they're a democracy just like us, so see, it's not bad.")
On behalf of myself, at least, if I as an American have not been supportive of my esteemed peers in Australia, it is simply because this is the first I've heard about this. It has not even made it into the Economist, which I read religiously.
We should all be frightened by this. Very much so. As Australia goes on this, so too might we all. And, to take an American perspective, the Religious Right would LOVE this: a chance to centrally dictate and control morality with technology. Next stop, implants which monitor behavior constantly and sends SNMP traps to the FBI alerting them to illegal/immoral behavior? It very well could be.
As a previous poster noted, worse than MS.
AOL buying Netscape is like putting a frog in a pot of water and then slowly turning up the heat. I won't know that it's being killed.
Of course Sun (who seems to be in control of the servers) is going to 86 officially or unofficially everything but Solaris. They want to move boxes.
I think the renaming of everything (except the browser) to iPlanet sums it all up. Netscape is gone, they just don't know it yet. For all intents and purposes, they are part of Sun.