Re: [hangout] Re: eGovOS conference in D.C.; I'm not attending that

[Jay Sulzberger]

Ah, sorry folks, I meant to postpone my last, but I sent it by misfiring a
finger macro.

I stand by the statements.

oo--JS.


On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Jay Sulzberger wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Stanley A. Klein wrote:
>
> >
> > At 06:47 AM 2/8/2003 -0500, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >    If we go the press will report what we say.  Some reporters may partly
> > fall
> > >    for some Microsoft lies, but if we do not go, almost every reporter 
> > > will
> > >    present the worst, stupidest, and most vicious Microsoft lies as being
> > >    "simply the facts".
> > >
> > >It is important to go to the event to correct the falsehoods, but at
> > >the same time we must also cast doubt on the legitimacy of the event.
> > >For people who think that "Linux" World reflects what our movement is
> > >about, the simple fact that they invite Microsoft is a statement much
> > >louder than ours.  How exactly to do this, I am not sure.
> > >
> > >The tendency for events that pretend to be part of our community to
> > >betray its spirit is very harmful, and we have to push back against
> > >it.  I wish we could push back much harder than we have done in the
> > >past.
> >
> >
> > Are you suggesting that in order for the conference to be legitimate a
> > university and a conference committee that includes several government
> > employees should deny a speaker from Microsoft the right to present the
> > Microsoft position in debate before an audience almost guaranteed to be
> > packed with active competitors and adversaries of Microsoft?
>
> Of course.  Many government agencies and organizations are required by law
> not to use Microsoft products for three reasons:
>
> 1. No second source.
>
> 2. Microsoft's conviction under antitrust laws.
>
> 3. Their products are radically inferior.
>
> >
> > Can you imagine for a moment the uproar and political firestorm that would
> > result from such a situation?
>
> Why should we worry?  Government agencies continue to violate both statute
> law and adminstrative law by buying source secret systems.
>
> Microsoft does not invite us to their meetings, and I have yet to hear of
> any "firestorms", which by your logic, should have erupted every week for
> the past ten years, at least.
>
> >
> > At the eGovOS conference in October they had someone from the Alexis de
> > Toqueville Institute, a Washington think tank nobody ever heard of before,
> > present a position in a debate with Bruce Perens.  The position was based
> > on a paper that could easily have been ghost written by a Microsoft
> > lobbyist.  (There was another pro/anti-Microsoft pair of speakers, but I
> > don't remember who they were.)  I don't recall a pro-Microsoft question or
> > comment from the floor during the Q&A following the speeches.  I even asked
> > a question, which I intend to turn into a proposal for an IEEE-USA position
> > paper on the conduct of public business in publicly interoperable data
> > formats.
> >
> > As an attendee and participant in this and related events, let me assure
> > you that the event does not merely pretend to be part of our community,
> > it is part of our community.  And the spirit of our community is not
> > betrayed.  Indeed, it is extending into government in very positive ways.
> >
> > Microsoft is working as hard as they can to exclude us from government.
> > We need to block their moves.  For example, at the request of the
> > government, IEEE-USA has committed to setting up a conference on "secure
> > information technology" and I am working to ensure that the Free Software
> > and Open Source software communities are represented there.
> >
> > I view the eGovOS conference as a positive move to help block Microsoft
> > from what they are trying to do and to advance our cause within government.
> >
> >
> > Stan Klein
>