On Windows

I like that the FSF is directly addressing moving to Free Software on Windows. There are a host of reasons why someone might use Windows but still be open to Free Software.

I don’t have any facts to back me up (not that I ever let that stop me) but I believe that many Linux users arrived via Free Software on Windows. At the very least, Free Software on Windows has the side effect of promoting open standards.

Early stages

It looks to me like there is more to come from this FSF campaign – I can see each “section” being expanded and tightened up rhetorically as well as the “gang” getting more members.

One issue

Mr. Bott calls out some of the points made on the PlayOgg FAQ as being “FUD”, “outright lies”, “technically absurd”, “factually dead wrong”, and maybe even downright anti-kittens-with-funny-captions-underneath.

Let’s look at one of his examples (we’ll only take the first one, but the entire article is chock-full of fallacious fun).

From the PlayOgg FAQ:

Unlike MP3, Ogg Vorbis is not restricted by patents. Microsoft had to pay $1.5 billion after being sued for using MP3 without a license. With Ogg Vorbis, they would have been safe!

Mr. Bott offers two criticisms:

That is an outright lie. Microsoft did not have to pay a penny to anyone as the result of a lawsuit on the MP3 format.
[...]
That overlooks the inconvenient fact that the first stable version of the Ogg Vorbis reference software (version 1.0) was not released until July 2002. It’s hard to imagine how Microsoft could have chosen the “safe” open-source option when it didn’t exist yet.

The problem

The truth is that as things turned out, Microsoft did not have to pay $1.5 billion. It was on the hook, and then off again six months later when a judge overturned the jury verdict.

Does that make the FAQ an “outright lie”? You be the judge.

If the last sentence off that PlayOgg FAQ had been a little more explicit and read “With a patent-free format like Ogg Vorbis, they would have been safe!”, would that be better? Would it change the validity of the point?

Of course not -  the point the PlayOgg FAQ is attempting to make is perfectly valid: there are no (first-party) patent restrictions on Ogg Vorbis[1], and MP3 has more than a few licensing and patent issues.

How about if the other patents that Microsoft did have to pay for in the same dispute with Alcatel-Lucent – to the tune of $512 million dollars – were mentioned?  True, they weren’t audio codec patents, but they were still the results of “infringing” on software patents.

Isn’t that the over-riding concern behind the PlayOgg campaign?

The polemics

People like Mr. Bott who carry water for organizations like Microsoft are going to resort to hypocrisy, hair-splitting and strawman-bashing tactics.

For example, Mr. Bott seems quite content to quote the CEO of the MPEG-LA asserting that “no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent free” in the very article where he is taking the FSF to task for FUD.

For another example, Mr. Bott seems quite content to characterize the FSF as “open-source advocates” – a very sloppy generalization – in the very article where he is taking the PlayOgg FAQ author to task for making sloppy generalizations.

It is my contention this sort of rhetoric always occurs when people are more interested in “scoring points” than reaching the truth of the matter or engaging in honest debate. There is a mindset that if you can score enough points you somehow change reality and win the argument even if you are wrong. I don’t get that way of thinking, but it seems to be quite common.

The prevention

So, be aware of that mindset when you write. There will always be someone out there ready to take a cheap shot or play integrity-free games with the point you are trying to make. You can’t stop them – because they aren’t after the truth - but you don’t have to give up free points on the goal either.

[1] It would be difficult to claim there are no patent restrictions at all on any non-trivial software, because of the currently terribly broken software patent system in the United States. Since patent trolls or any random 3rd party can claim a patent violation, the best one can claim is that the producer itself has declined to restrict the software.

Usually I’m not this pedantic, but since being a bit more pedantic is sort of the whole point of this article …

Award for Advancement of Free Software: John Gilmore (Cygnus Solutions)

Award for Project of Social Benefit: Internet Archive

Open Ballot: would you hire the FSF for the role of Linux PR department?

The Free Software Foundation has always done a great job defending the various free software licences, promoting their use, and asking for Linux to be referred to as GNU/Linux. But we’re asking whether, regardless of its good work in this field, the FSF has helped free software grow or whether its hard stance against proprietary software has harmed Linux up-take. Add your comments below, preferably answering “Yes, they’re the voice of free software” or “No, I prefer open source and Linux without GNU.”

I mean the title question is unclear at best , the “explanatory” text is confusing, and the preferred answers neither address the title question nor are they exclusive (to the limited degree I am able to make sense out of them).

This reminds me of a GNOME Foundation poll.

The latter document is an informative read, and Bruce Byfield has an insightful take on the situation in his article “Selling GPL Exceptions isn’t Exceptional“.

What Lies Beneath

Although the actual specifics are fairly interesting in and of themselves, I’m more interested in an underlying theme, one that Mr. Byfield astutely hits upon here:

Both supporters and opponents of the FSF sometimes seem to have created a set of straw figures to react to. The supporters have done so out of uncritical respect (if not downright hero worship) of Stallman and the FSF, and the opponents for propaganda, but the results are surprisingly similar. For both, Stallman and the FSF are ethically and morally uncompromising — admirably so, for supporters, and naively, dangerously so for opponents.

I often wonder how it is that RMS, a person who expends considerable effort to explain himself precisely is so grossly misrepresented? (Quite a bit moreso by his opponents, I should say. In my humble opinion, Mr. Byfield is bending over backward to present both sides in the same light here.)

It is a favorite tactic of some to paint a caricature of Free Software supporters in general, and RMS in specific, as uncompromising unrealistic “zealots” with only the barest understanding of how the “real world” functions. Yet even the most casual examination of FSF articles and actions refutes such a notion.

Thus I return again to my point that the vocal anti-Free Software critics are either ignorant or malicious.¹ The FSF is quite good at laying out its philosophy in great detail on its website. You don’t have to sign an NDA or anything.

¹ The sadly necessary disclaimer:  I’m not suggesting there is no valid criticism out there, just that people who play the “zealot” card, ridicule RMS or the FSF for “hypocrisy”, or enage in other such fact and logic-free fallacies are to be dismissed with scorn.

The Purpose

It’s no surprise that the FSF is following up Bad Vista with Windows 7 Sins;  the former was a very succesful effort at educating and helping users find alternatives to the locked-down and locked-in world of proprietary software, and the FSF would surely like lightning to strike twice.

The 7 Sins

Limiting it to just seven is in itself a bit of a sin, but here’s what the FSF chose:

• Education
• DRM
• Security
• Monopoly
• Standards
• Lock In
• Privacy

Security – not just the direct and native insecurity of Microsoft Windows – but the less commonly realized insecurity of so critically relying on a outside party would be my top pick.

That, or perhaps Monopoly, because if it were not for Microsoft’s unethical and often illegal business practices including court-convicted abuse of monopoly status many of the “lesser” sins would be irrelevant.

They are all good choices, I wish they spelled out something like “SHAZAM!” though – that would have been a nice touch.

The reaction

Now, as I said it is no surprise that the FSF is engaging in this important effort, but what was a bit surprising was some of the reactions to it.

For example, consider Mr. Matt Asay’s column, where he ignores the entire message of the site and chooses instead to try to paint the FSF as hypocritices for using a CC-No Derivatives license, and then has the laughable audacity to call for more code from the FSF – as if the FSF doesn’t already have a project or two out there - code which he hints is not derivable, a truly foolish red herring to wave about.

Mr. Asay has written many critical pieces about the FSF, the GPL, and related matters recently – it’s a shame that he continues to pretend to be a proponent of Open Source, when it is quite clear he is actually some sort of pro-commerical open-core “fauxpen source” evangelist.

This is the same sort of dishonest dismissal we see from non-Open Source supporters like Business Week, right down to using the same language (both articles deem the effort “silly”). In fact, Mr. Asay endorses the juvenille ranting of the Download Squad’s article in his own writing – a truly vacuous rock to build upon, I should think.

The real reaction

Of course, I personally think that if absolute dishonesty is the best rebuttal that can be managed, it speaks quite well for the FSF’s efforts! Reading those critical articles, and then realizing there is not one logical, factual or rational rebuttal is a strange sensation: confused on why someone would bother, but pleased they out themselves!

In any case, as for the Windows 7 Sins campain proper, opening with letter writing and public meeting is a good start, and I hope to see more interesting and engaging methods of getting the word out.

Seriously, think about my “SHAZAM!” idea.

The FSF has announced they will be hosting a mini-summit discussing cultivating and increasing women’s participation in Free Software.

According to the announcement “the FSF and GNOME Foundation are seeking practical initiatives to increase the participation of women in the [Free Software] movement”.

Richard Stallman, the founder and president of the FSF, has expressed his considered views to some extent on this issue in past interviews; it is commendable for the FSF to continue to lead the way in political and ethical debate in the Free Software community.