On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Wm.G.McGrath wrote: > While this interested nobody intended to remain lurking on the > sidelines of this debate, recent comments have spurred me to open a > window and contribute my two cents to the conversation. Hope you don't > mind.
Don't mind? On the contrary, it's important for us to hear as many viewpoints as possible. There's nothing wrong with waiting until the right time to de-lurk. ;-) > I would suggest that we have to define ourselves as an ethics first > organization. By this I mean we should be vendor-neutral, inclusive of > all licences, and non-commercial in our purpose and objectives. We're in violent agreement on issues of vendor-neutrality (which IMO extends to distribution neutrality, including distros that aren't produced by vendors, such as Debian). As for licemses, we need to set a boundary of what we consider acceptable. Nobody here (I hope) is going to champion the Microsoft Shared Source initiative, so we're not *that* inclusive ;-). The two commonly used yardsticks are the Open Source Definition at opensource.org and the free software definition maintained by the FSF. They are largely similar but have some subtle differences; one clear example if the Apple Darwin license, which meets the open source definition but doesn't pass muster with the FSF on matters of privacy. Sorry to sound so anal about this but IMO just saying "inclusive" is a bit too ambiguous. > As a true NP, it should not be CLUEs role to speak for business. > Business can and does speak for itself. It's interests are very > different from those of the free software community. Actually, I'd disagree here. IBM has as much of an interest in increasing the use of Linux as members of the local LUG. The motivations may be different, but the tactics can be remarkably similar. (Also consider that for some LUG members, the motivations aren't that different. Many people would love for more use of Linux so that they may have careers working with Linux rather than Windows or Unix. That, in a micro way, is as much of a commercial motivation as any vendor's.) CLUE can provide a forum for companies to work together with community groups for the general betterment. The companies can provide resources and the LUGs can provide people -- it *can* be a very symbiotic relationship so long as no one side tries to dominate. Having learned from the mistakes of the Unix wars, companies such as IBM and HP are willing to work together to jointly advance Linux, and CLUE can provide them with the conduit. > If money talks, I would be quite concerned as to whose message is > being voiced. By defining our principles up front, we specify our > message prior to accepting contributions. Those who contribute will > know, in advance, what to expect from CLUE. Yup. Normally that kind of thing is expressed in the charter of the corporation or even in a (shudder) mission statement. > A large part of the corporate community is anti-ethical. Just look > around and ask how many vendors are pro-GNU. Given the choice of > making a sale or doing the right thing most corporate interests > choose profits over ethics. And here we get into the subtle differences between the "open source" approach (as personified by Torvalds) and the "free software" ethos as expressed by Stallman. Linus folks say that it's a good idea for solid business reasons. Stallman says using GPL software should be advocated because it's the Right Thing To Do. > We need to put ethics before profits. Be careful. To some people (me included), the pragmatic approach to advocating open source is quite ethical, to some it's not enough. I recall the holier-than-thou arguments over KDE and the original QPL and it left scars on all concerned. I think you'll find within the community a fairly diverse range of approaches to the ethics of (for instance) including non-free software such as Netscape or Acrobat in distributions. If you try to be too restrictive in your definition of who's "right", your remaining organization could be too small to accomplish much. > They are not incompatible nor need they be seen to be. Linux can be > both a better way of doing software as well as a better way of doing > business. Yes. > We do not want to position ourselves as 'The New Monopoly'. We are not > trying to clone Snow White or The Evil Empire here. We are much more > than 'The Next Big Thing'. Some business interests however, can think > of nothing better. Talk monopoly and they drool. We want to steer > clear of these people and their corrupting zeal for profit. Indeed, some business think no further beyond this quarter's IT budget. That's a reality we need to live with, because such as heck MS and Sun are banging on their doors. > And the time is right. The selloramma is over. The vision of an > information economy, the adventure of the internet, the dream of a > global infosphere have all been done. Those days will not come again, > regardless of what certain interests would like. Their's is a vision > of the past. Maybe. More likely it'll happen anyway, but so slowly that nobody will notice intil it's too late ;-). > The door is open to Linux. Linux ought to be the cure for Klondike > Fever - not the carrier of a new strain of the disease. Free software > is about bits and brains not bits and bucks. It could be both. If use of free software makes a company more efficient (and more profitable) than its competitors using proprietary technology, is that not a win? I think that many who take the pragmatic approach suggest that Linux's appeal to greed (its lower cost to own, maintain and copy) gets the foot in the door. Having made the entrance, the other benefits of software freedom can be much more easily explained and demonstrated. Is this approach unethical? I certainly don't think so. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
