[TriLUG] LG Joins Microsoft's Open Source Protection Club

[Marc]

On 6/19/07, Magnus <magnus at trilug.org> wrote:
> Tim Jowers wrote:
> >    I'd like to know what you think we should do.  I don't think the "Linux
> > is bad" message is believable but know the "Linux is illegal" message would
> > be heard. That's the one Gates is seeking to establish.



The message 'linux is bad' basically is the same as 'linux is
illegal'.  We are both saying the same thing - the smear campaign is
trying to make it harder for businesses to justify b uying linux by
creating false doubt and worries.  At some point, for the 'greater
linux /FOSS community' - such as the kernel guys, FSF, etc. - MUST
form some type of coalition or political force against the Evil
Empire.

By the way -- I highly recommend that Richard Stallman *NOT* be the
spokesman, since he makes open source software advocates look like a
bunch of loonies.  This is a serious discussion with many millions if
not billions at stake, and one must look the part (ie not look like a
homeless guy) to compete in a business arena.  Eben Moglen is probably
the best person that I have heard, and has the legal background to
understand the fine print implications that many techies do not and
will not understand.

You are right, Gates et al are great strategists.  You are also right
that the long term implications will actually hurt America.  Even more
nauseating, as the problem worsens, Microsoft will lobby for more
money and publicly pay off more politicians in the name of fixing the
'digital divide'.  Then M$ will probably outsource more American jobs
to Bangalore for $5/month and probably get tax breaks for doing so.
Makes you sick.  It's like a convicted child molester getting to be
made head of a daycare - the problems aren't going away, they are just
getting more wierd and complex.

There are a zillion side conversations, but my main point is that the
Linux community must soon gain a powerful, financially backed,
lobbying presence and legal team to fight these events PROACTIVELY
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

1.  LEADERSHIP must emerge from SOMEWHERE - kernel.org, Red Hat inc,
the Debian folks, the Ubuntu/Shuttleworth people, IBM etc. -- and
probably some of all of the above.

2.  This team must, with the aid of the greater linux community,
basically prevent the opponent from 'defining' us, and our software.
If we continue to let Redmond define the battle, the terms, and who we
are and what our software is, we are finished.  The 'good guys' team
needs to do things like proactively sue for hypothetical lost sales
projections based on damages from the Redmond '235' threat.

If you let the 'other team' define you, you will lose - look at the
O.J. Simpson case - the whole world knows what happened, but the
prosecution allowed the defense to create a silly nursery rhyme and
dumb down the jury into believing anything.  Facts will cease to
matter at that point.

3.  Magnus has some great points too, I agree that this is not limited
to just a tech conversation but points to bigger issues for the US as
a corporatocracy.  For the sake of sanity I am only focused on the
tech and specifically Linux aspect.



Marc