In Mr. Asay’s recent piece “IBM patent claims show open source has arrived“, that’s not a problem – because I disagree with everything, filled as it is with inaccuracies and sloppy thinking.

Here we go

Mr. Asay starts rather badly, calling IBM’s letter to TurboHercules a “cease-and-desist” letter to the “OpenHercules” open-source project.

Problem 1: The open-source project name is “Hercules“, not “OpenHercules”.

Problem 2: The letter is not a “cease-and-desist” letter. A “C&D” is an order or request to halt an activity, or else face legal action. IBM’s letter does no such thing.

So we see from the start that Mr. Asay’s understanding of the situation is perhaps less nuanced than one might hope.

Building on a foundation of sand

Because I doubt Mr. Asay actually understands the situation, I am not surprised that his analysis is poor.

For example, consider Mr. Asay’s attempt to frame IBM’s actions a being “willing to defend its mainframe business against any and all threats, open source or otherwise.”

The problem here is that IBM explicitly pledged not to assert 500 named patents against Open Source and that 2 of those patents where among those listed in the IBM letter.

You don’t get to explictly promise not to assert patents against Open Source and then turn around and assert patents against Open Source. It doesn’t matter if Open Source is a “threat” or not. You made a promise.

Of course, promises are made to be broken, especially if the cost-benefit analysis says it is more profitable to break the promise than keep it. This is just one of so many reasons that people take Microsoft’s various promises, pacts, covenants and double pinky-swears with a grain of salt.

Watch out

Be careful now – if you want to excuse IBM by pointing out that they can chose to enforce patents outside of the 500 named  (let’s assume they listed the 2 by mistake and will retract them), then you must in turn acknowledge that projects like Mono and Moonlight which range far far beyond the standardized core are in explict danger as well.

I do not think IBM is legally out-of-bounds here, no more than I think Microsoft would legally be out-of-bounds to shut down vast portions of Mono and Moonlight now or in the future. (Perhaps after Novell is bought out and agreements are no longer renewed?)

I’m just surprised Mr. Asay finds this an encouraging development for Open Source.

Revealing a flawed understanding of Open Source

Mr. Asay reveals – not for the first time – his corporatized view of “Open Source”:

This doesn’t make IBM an enemy to open source, because that sort of statement doesn’t make any sense anymore, now that open source is just how software gets written by just about everyone, at least, at some point in the software supply chain.

This is view of Open-Source-as-a-design-methodology absolutely misses the entire point of Open Source.

By reducing Open Source into “that’s just how software gets written” and ignoring everything else, Mr. Asay shows his understanding of Open Source is either superficial or fatally biased.

And I’m not talking about “Free Software” here – look to the OSI’s own definition, paying special attention to “No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor”.

Really off the Reservation

Now, even though we’ve seen that Mr. Asay neither grasps the specific situation of IBM and Hercules, nor the general situation of Open Source, the next bit is still a bit shocking:

IBM has always been an opportunist when it comes to open source, just as every open-source company, project, and developer is. Try ripping off Red Hat’s trademarks and see how long it takes before a cease-and-desist letter lands on your door. Or try stealing GPL code from the project of your choice, without contributing code modifications back as per the license, and see how that makes the developer feel.

This is an express train of ignorance that shot pass Stupid Junction in Wrong City and ends up derailing just shy of Did He Really Say That Central?

Problem 1: Every open-source developer does not try to stop competing developers with patents. Every open-source developer doesn’t even file for patents. Every open-source project does not try to stop competing developers with patents.

This goes to one of my main complaints with Mr. Asay and others of his pro-corporate bent: stop trying to pretend like every person on earth is a souless entity focused on profit above all else.

Some are, and some aren’t. Even assuming one stays within the bounds of the law, there’s a whole lot of grazing land between What Is Legal To Do and What Is Ethical To Do.

Stop pretending like everyone who participates in Open Source would sell out every other participant if they thought it would benefit them. Put plainly, it’s damn disrespectful.

Problem 2: Trademarks and “stealing GPL code” are not the same as enforcing patents. I suspect Mr. Asay knows this and knows he is (at best) using bad examples of equivalency here, so I must wonder why he is doing it?

One of the main differences is that it is highly unlikely that you will innocently “rip off Red Hat’s trademarks” or “steal GPL code”. However it is highly likely that you will innocently infringe a patent if your software product is non-trivial.

Another is that “ripping off” and “steal” implies malice in appropriating other people’s property. Even if Hercules is infringing an IBM patent, it does not follow that it was done maliciously. Why use language then, to characterize it so?

Train keep a rollin’

You think I’m reading too much into this? Consider the very next paragraphy from Mr. Asay:

If, in fact, TurboHercules is violating IBM’s patents, shame on it. Just because OpenHercules is open source isn’t a license to steal, any more than IBM should have the right to pilfer code from it or any other project without complying with the license grants afforded by such projects.

This is ignorant in the extreme, and not just because Mr. Asay can’t even be bothered to Google the project under discussion to get its name right.

As we’ve already seen, “violating” patents can be near unavoidable and most certainly does not carry the same mens rea that “stealing” or “pilfering code” does.

In this short paragraph, Mr. Asay reveals a fundamentally flawed understanding of both software development and patents and copyright.

What we are talking about

Stacking bewildering point atop bewildering point, Mr. Asay at last comes to his truly bizarre conclusion:

This isn’t cause for concern. It’s cause for celebration. It means open source truly has arrived.

Really? Not a cause for concern? If I were working on an Open Source project that might compete with an IBM offering, I would be just a touch concerned.

I certainly would not be celebrating - what sort of idiot party do you suggest? The “Glad I’ll Have More Free Time When MegaCorp Shuts Me Down” Shindig?

Overall situation

Leaving behind (mercifully) Mr. Asay’s questionable analysis, I am witholding my own interpretation of the overall event.

I strongly oppose software patents, especially when wielded offensively, and double-y especially when wielded offensively against Open Source projects.

However – in this particular case – it is not clear to me who all the actors (and motivations) in this story are, and to be frank it’s not clear to me that IBM is actually going after the Open Source project in question. I need to see more of the document trail and I think associations need to be vetted a bit more.

First, I read Matt Asay’s “Should we be having this conversation on Twitter?” post, where he expresses his preference:

I therefore prefer the discussion that arises out of a blog, but is conducted over Twitter. It’s hard to remember to go back to blogs I’ve written to check for comments, but in the real-time world of Twitter, it’s easy and structurally encouraged: when someone hits me with an @mjasay, I notice.

Following up comments

I do agree that it is difficult to return to a blog to check for responses to a comment; which often means I don’t even bother commenting. I can literally count on one hand the number of times this year I’ve “re-visited” a blog to check on a comment I made.

It’s not because I wouldn’t like to follow-up, it’s just not easy to do. I do see some blogs that offer to email when a new comment is added, but that is far from the norm. Automatic notification is an area here I would like to see a better solution for.

Twitter is not the answer

I hate twitter. Among other shortcomings: it’s damn near impossible to follow a conversation – you can only do it “backwards” and often not even then; the character limitation makes detailed or nuanced discussion impossible; and URL-shortners break the web.

Twitter works for short, pithy and quick announcements, and it doesn’t work for actual conversation.

In fact, I suspect that’s why twitter is so popular: the vast majority of people do not want to engage in conversation: they want to announce their thoughts to a huge crowd and then get to steppin’. Most people don’t want to listen, they want to talk.

Twitter’s great for that sort of quasi-discussion because it’s all about ”me” and there is little possibility of debate. Say whatever you want and be validated!

Another view

I recently found Russell Coker’s blog – and he has a post “Why Comments?” Mr. Coker provides some interesting analysis on the various types of blog and comments and states his preference:

For my blog I prefer comments for short responses and blog posts for the longer ones. If you write a blog post that references one of my posts then please enter a comment to inform me and the readers of my blog. Email is not preferred but anyone who wants to send me some is welcome to do so.

This is pretty much how I feel, and I think it deals with the weakness of the blog format sufficiently.

My rules

I have a few internal rules on blog comments – I haven’t found it necessary to try to codify them, and this is not an attempt to do so! I’m just trying to give the Gentle Reader an idea of how I view comments.

Don’t go round-and-round forever

I welcome debate, but you have to try to keep things from getting repetitive and boring. I’ve found that 2-3 rounds of “back and forth” are almost always sufficient for both sides to make their case. Past that, someone is repeating themself.

Always give the guest the last word

Or at least offer them opportunity – they may or may not take it, of course! This is just common courtsey, and few things are more childish than trying to have the last word as if that wins the argument.

Don’t feed the trolls

This is a hard thing because sometimes you don’t recognize the troll at first, and you want to give people the benefit of the doubt. I’ll still remember the one time I took a troll very seriously because I honestly thought he was interested in the truth .

On the flip side, I get a fair amount of Kooky McKook-Kook comments that I  just delete out of hand.

The important thing is not so much trying to spot the troll, as sending them to Coventry once you do.

Cut a little slack to the opposition

This is another hard one – but in someways it’s the most important one.

It is natural to want to “crush” your idealogical opponent, especially on your own home turf. Who does this jerk think he is anyway, coming on my blog calling me wrong!

But think of it this way – it took a bit of guts for that person to come into “hostile territory” and make his case. So, give a bit of respect for that.

More importantly, that contrary visitor is performing a very important function: they are preventing your blog from becoming an echo chamber. Few things will help you clarify and sharpen your arguments than going a round or two with the Loyal Opposition, and a echo chamber will only dull you into repeating talking points and resting on poorly supported arguments.

I recall one time I actually bothered to go to a blog that I strongly disagreed with and posted a calm comment showing how the main premise of the post was factually incorrect. I was exceedingly polite as the blog had strong warnings about expressing dissent un-diplomatically.

I certainly didn’t expect them to agree with me, but I thought other readers may appreciate a counter-example that clearly showed the premise had some problems.

Instead though, they simply never approved my comment. Now, one day we may have inarguable proof their point is correct  (I doubt it, but it’s possible) – but I will always think of them as cowards and liars.

Mr. Asay, Canonical COO, blogs up “Life’s too short for partisanship“.

Let’s break it on down

If Microsoft warms up to open source, why not share some plaudits? And even when it gets things wrong, surely it’s better to politely critique rather than spew invectives?

In the real world, appeasement very rarely works – and even rarer still for profit-based entities to respond to non-profit based approaches. Hostile entities very rarely respond to “polite critiques”. Do you know what Microsoft responds to? Customer demand and decreasing market share. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this to a COO.

Do you know what Linux has been managing to do since day 1 – despite Microsoft trying to destroy it at every turn? Increasing customer demand for Linux products and decreasing Microsoft market share.

As this progresses, Microsoft will continue to publicly pretend to embrace Open Source and Linux, while (more) carefully attempt to retard it behind-the-scenes. They have little choice, because their customer base will not tolerate direct attacks on Linux, while their business model will not tolerate allowing Linux to grow unhindered.

I have cat-like reactions

The reactions possible are not limited to ”polite critiques” or “spew invectives”, and though I appreciate the rhetorical power of the False Dilemma, it is still a logical fallacy nonetheless.

People that point out Microsoft’s past and current attacks on Open Source, Linux and user freedoms are not “spewing invectives” – they are simply reciting facts. I’m sorry the facts are uncomfortable for Microsoft and Team Apologista, but you make your bed and you lie in it.

People that do not want Microsoft baked into every level of their Linux experience are not “spewing invectives”: Perhaps they see no need to rely on a court-convicted abusive monopolist. Perhaps, having finally broke free of Microsoft lock-in, they hesitate to expose themselves again. Perhaps they see how far Linux has come despite Microsoft’s best efforts, and see no margin in changing.

People that have moral, ethical and philosophical objections to the restriction of user freedoms are not “spewing invectives” – they are simply attempting to live a life in harmony with their beliefs.

Stop trying to paint all criticism as “invectives” or “zealotry” or whatever derogatory and dismissive label you would rather apply than actually deal with the substance of the criticism.

The mythical community

But we don’t need to be partisan whiners and windbags along the way toward total world domination. Let the politicians beat each other up. We should be bigger than they. More like a community.

Microsoft is not part of the community because they want to control what they can and destroy what they can not. ‘Twas not I, you, or Linux that set them down that road, friend. Microsoft freely chose that path.

If you want to talk about smoothing out differences between actual community members (like GNOME vs KDE or Ubuntu vs RHEL), that’s one thing – and a good thing. But placing Microsoft in the same category is dishonest.

Getting old

I do agree with Mr. Asay that “it gets old”. Which is why I honestly don’t understand those who intentionally fire things up by promoting Microsoft technology. You know it will be controversial. You know it will cause problems. That is obvious, inarguable and proven time and time again.

So, why do it? And, then having done this thing you knew would be divisive, pretend to be suprised and against divisiveness?

That’s what gets old to me.

You don’t innovate if you spend all your time talking and working with people that agree with you. You learn by confronting hard questions and answering them. Canonical has a culture of tackling hard problems, and that starts with serious, critical introspection. I’m just one piece of that, but I’m hardly alone in believing we can do better.

-Matt Asay, Canonical COO

Well, knock me down with a feather.

Things are all blurry – Ryan Paul actually wrote something insightful rather than parroting Mono press releases! Matt Asay used to talk junk about Linux and didn’t use it … now he loves it! I agree with 3 consecutive sentences that Mr. Asay wrote!

NOOO! I like my worldview in stark black and white! Get back into your pigeonholes!

Good Thing

For Mr. Asay, this is a good thing: he will greatly expand his influence, and be able to impose his philosophy on what is arguably the most popular distro.

Bad Thing

For everyone else, this is a bad thing: he will greatly expand his influence, and be able to impose his philosophy on what is arguably the most popular distro.

Ubuntu is already under too much influence from anti-Free Software, pro-Commercialization / pro-Fauxpen Source thinkers. They hire ex-Microsoft and ex-Novell employees, brook virtually no discussion on fundamentally divisive technologies like Mono and Moonlight, and put profits ahead of both user experience and ethics by making Microsoft the “opt-out” default search provider. At best, this mindset considers the Free Software foundation of GNU/Linux an inconvenience or distraction.

Mr. Asay will fit right in with this mindset.

Pro-Corporation Thing

Mr. Asay is pro-corporatism:

I have served on the OSI board for a few years now. In that time I have been frustrated by the board’s lack of corporatism, not its alleged predilection for corporate interests. Ask some of the open-source companies who have tried to get OSI to take positions favorable to them on attribution (badgeware) and other topics, and they’ll concur. The OSI is, if anything, not corporate enough.

If you understand that this pro-corporate interest dominates Mr. Asay’s thinking then you will not be surprised (or enlightened) by his commentary on any subject. Just think of how a company might best profit and nothing else, and you have it in one.

Another example:

Here’s a specific policy request: while the Open Source Initiative has expanded its board, of which I was once a terribly unproductive part, the OSI has not expanded its ideological base. The OSI can help itself and the open-source community by enlarging the experience base of its board members.  

This might include, for example, more business-minded open-source people. But it would also be helpful to include those in the open-source community that are deeply affected by open source, but may have very different views on what open source should mean, including representatives from Microsoft and Oracle, or simply developers who disagree with the current board’s opinions.

I could go on and on, but there’s no need. The underlying “embrace corporate interest” theme is present in nearly every posting Mr. Asay makes.

Polemic Thing

It’s funny in a way that – just like for Novell and Mono/Moonlight – my concern with Mr. Asay is not so much in what they do, but in how they promote it.

For example, Mr. Asay continually enployees nonsensical rhetoric:

For some, the definition of software freedom begins and ends with source code. Such people have apparently never heard of market competition.

{{weasel word}} tag please. Who exactly is out there arguing that software freedom ”begins and ends with source code”? Proponents of Free Software recognize source code visibility as necessary but not sufficient – so it’s not them. And proponents of Open Source simply don’t care about ”software freedom” - so it’s not them, either.

It’s worse than just the use of weasel words in the main thesis, though – because it’s a straw man. It’s not that a mysterious “some” think this thing; it’s that no-one thinks this! That doesn’t stop Mr. Asay from deftly beating up on that straw man, though.

Such dishonest rhetoric is my main problem with this strain of proponent. I guess that’s why some{{weasel word}} of them try so very very hard to paint RMS or the FSF as hypocritical.

Another example of poor rhetoric, misrepresenting sources:

But for me, it was Red Hat’s swipes at its competitors that are possibly more momentous. It’s not that Red Hat never criticizes competitors: in 2006, for example, Red Hat declared the imminent death (wrongly, as it turns out) of Novell.

However, the linked to article doesn’t mention “imminent”, “death” or “Novell”. (The link is broken on CNET now. Here is the original article referenced.)

Again, I could go on and on pointing on such poor argument tactics, but just browse through The Open Road CNET archives if you wish to play the Logical Fallacy Game yourself.

Prediction Thing

Past performance is no indicator of future returns? I’d like to think so. I will say that Mr. Asay does intellectually understand Free Software and Open Source, both in combination and in seperation. If motivated to do so, he could be a powerful force for exploring Free Software as a viable commerical and popular undertaking. Sadly, I don’t see this motivation in him or in Canonical.

Therefore I expect an increased acceptance of corporate interests and an increased disdain for Free Software ideology. I expect the refrain of “users don’t care about Freedom” to increase in volume and variation.

Finally, I expect any dissent from the community will be – in time-tested Ubuntu Forums tradition – heavily moderated and restricted to the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.