I suspect that this is getting into conversations that a "Linux
Consultants SIG" should have, and not a conversation in the lines of "What
should CLUE do to properly start a Linux Consultants SIG".
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Wm. G. McGrath wrote:
> Sticks and stones. The point, once again, is to get past "sides".
This is not going to be as easy as you are suspecting it to be. Some of
us have founded our businesses on publicly "picking sides" where it
relates to licenses and other business models.
A better way explain it is to say I have chosen a core competency and a
business model that deliberately excludes the products (and licenses) of
"software manufacturing".
I consider this to be no different than a coffee-house that has created
a business model that only accepts "fair trade coffee". Having a
restaurant group claiming they are a lesser-business for not being liberal
and accepting all coffee isn't going to be helpful to anyone.
> Just try and think about what would be good for the profession as a
> whole.
>
> Professionals do have to deal with multiple licences.
There we go again ... ;-)
Dealing with multiple licenses doesn't make you a professional. We are
talking about business models, not whether or not a given business is
professional or not. What is good for the profession as a whole is also
something that is going to be hard to get agreement on.
I am not questioning whether or not CLUE should be "license liberal" if
it creates a SIG for Linux professionals.
What I am doing is questioning the use of the phrase "professional" to
itself be associated with being "license liberal".
This is important for CLUE. If people like myself who have business
models which are not "license liberal" feel like our beliefs/businesses
are being questioned all the time, we are not likely going to be part of a
SIG.
There is a difference between a "diversity of people" and a "diversity
of licenses".
---and for something not all that different....
As to the cracker/hacker/etc, lets try another example: deliberately
breaking the law.
In a deliberate defiance of the DMCA, I "illegally according to the USA"
watched a few DVD movies on my Linux computer using Open Source players
which make use of the "public secret" known as DeCSS. There is debate
whether this is legal in Canada or not as some legal advise has suggested
that USA law enforcement can be extended to Canada even if what you did
was legal in Canada.
Did I include this in my resume? Not only is it part of my website
which constitutes my resume, I :
- submitted the fact that I did this to Industry Canada.
http://www.flora.ca/copyright-2001-cmpda-reply.shtml
- was interviewed for an Ottawa Citizen article that spoke about it
http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=133
- spoke about it with Highschool students
http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=129
- and Highschool teachers
http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=114
Besides not offering service for a wide variety of licenses *grins*,
does my deliberate and publicly breaking the law also make me less of a
professional? *grins*
> Even within Linux there are a range of licences to be complied with
> professionally. Apache, Perl, GPL, etc. CLUE can help to sort these out.
> A home user can get away with most anything, but failing to comply with
> licence requirements in the commercial world can have legal and
> financial consequences. As a professional organization we have to
> address the needs of a very large and diverse group of professionals.
In the past when I offered limited support for Microsoft desktops,
trying to encourage customers to comply with proprietary licenses was
always a problem. Simple things like requiring one license per computer,
not one license per location (for single machine licenses) was the most
common.
In one case I went as far as to state that I could not offer any support
for a computer where illegally copied software had been installed. This
still didn't stop them from buying single copies of products (IE:
Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or upgrades) and installing it on
approximately 20 computers.
Not wanting to constantly be in this position was one of the many
reasons why I have dropped support for proprietary desktops in my
business. It was a huge amount of time spent for little reward, and
nobody involved felt comfortable about the situation.
Getting customers to comply with proprietary license agreements is not
at all an easy thing to do. Other consultants I have seen just don't
bother trying and even help the customers break license agreements.
Some truly believe that "the customer is always right".
I will be interested to hear what other consultants do. I was suggested
more than once to just refer CATTA to these customers, but felt that
would harm the reputation of my business in a way I wasn't willing
to risk.
P.S. I have even included this issue in my online resume to try to avoid
the problem: http://www.flora.ca/open.shtml
# Users are encouraged to share knowledge and software with their
Family, Friends, co-workers and clients and build better relationships
with these people while at the same time improving access and
knowledge relating to computing.
Note: This freedom is very different from illegal copying (often
incorrectly termed: software piracy). I believe that the only time
when deliberately breaking the law is valid is as a form of civil
disobedience. In the case of computer software there is a clear
alternative and under current copyright laws nobody can yet claim they
are forced to use proprietary software. If you oppose the price and
loss of freedoms attached to the use of proprietary software, the
valid course of action is to switch to Free Software. With this in
mind I make it a general rule to not support computers which have
illegally copied software installed, and would hope that no potential
customer would ask me to break the law for them.
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
See http://weblog.flora.ca/ for announcements, activities, and opinions
Getting Open Source and Linux INto GovernmentS | No2Violence in Politics
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/942 | http://www.no-dot.ca/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
