Not Headhunted

Today I had a meeting with a large consultancy company. My impression going into the meeting was that we were going to talk about a cooperation. Nothing specific but I was being courted.

It turns out that this was not the case. As usual my expectations were higher than reality. They wanted me to pimp students to them. OK so this is NOT the way that he put it and it may be a nice idea for the students to meet consultants.

But what gets me annoyed is the fact that the meeting should have been arranged differently so that both parties knew what it was about. The flirting was false, their interest in me or my talents was veneer thin.

Normally I don’t care about corporate disinterest but today I had to re-arrange my schedule and make my way through the rain. If I had known they wanted my students I would not have been so interested. So yes this was a good way of getting me to the meeting. But the result is that I feel like I have been hustled – not really a great way to get me to help them.

DRM & Vista

Yesterday at the Internet Days in Stockholm a nice man from Microsoft who was apparantly no more than three steps away from the head developor at Redmond (nice, if you like games like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon)  stopped by the FSFE table to discuss DRM. We were on opposite sides of this issue and we had a very interesting discussion which concluded (predictably) that we were still in disagreement.

Basically his argument was that DRM can be useful and that opponents to DRM were too emotional (and a bit paranoid). My arguments were that DRM limits users rights, regulates in a way that limits legal rights and requires trust in a corporate body (whose goals are, and must be, profit – not user’s rights).

After a move into arguments that nobody is forced to use DRM:ed software we then moved into the realm of philosophy with arguments whether the user can “choose” without facts, or whether the user is aware that choices need to be made, and finally, whether or not the user cares about his/her rights.

We both had an agreeable time.

We also exchanged products. I gave him a copy of my PhD and he gave me a copy of Windows Vista Customer Preview program (Release Candidate 1). This version has ten licenses, which means that it can be installed on ten computers (or ten times on the same computer).

So â?? does anyone want to try Vista?

Software Eco-Systems

Say ecosystem* and most of us will think of something delicate and finely balanced. We have been taught to understand that the environment is made up of systems which hang together and that disturbances in one part will created unintended and in our experience sad consequences.

Say Microsoft, Adobe or General Motors and we tend to think of corporate bohemoths hardly the delicate flowers in need of protection, but more often a cause of some destruction within their particular ecosystem.

A letter (pdf here) to the European Commission has recently come to light (it was leaked). The letter shows the extent which the anti-Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) lobby is prepared to go in order to maintain control of their dominant business model for the production of software.

The letter was sent in response to a recent EU report on the role of open-source software in the European economy. The letter warns of against encouraging the FOSS movement. The letter states that the actions taken by the European Commission could “disrupt the entire software eco-system” and the report itself was biased and looked “more like a marketing document than a serious survey”.

The letter comes from The Initiative for Software Choice (ISC). A name which inspires one to think of openness and freedom. Yet the group is a lobby group funded by proprietary software manufacturers – this, in itself, may be seen as a contradiction in terms.
According to Techworld the ISC was created to oppose government efforts to give preference to open-source or open standards-based systems. According to critics such as Bruce Perens, the ISC largely pursues a pro-Microsoft agenda, though the group itself emphasises that it has more than 300 members.

The letter is full of artful uses of language and leaves the unsuspecting reader with an impression that the writer is concerned about the welfare of the European Union and its development. At the same time the message is hammered home – with the subtly of a rhino with a headache – do not change anything. The system works as it is.

Naturally the concerns of the manufacturers of proprietary software should and must be taken into consideration but this letter is a masterful peice of dubbletalk and rhetoric (in the worst way).

Read the letter and LEARN from it.

* An ecosystem refers to the collection of components and processes that comprise, and govern the behavior of, some defined subset of the biosphere. The term is generally understood to refer to all biotic and abiotic components, and their interactions with each other, in some defined area, with no conceptual restrictions on how large or small that area can be. To many, ecosystems, like any other system, are governed by the rules of systems science and cybernetics, as applied specifically to collections of organisms and relevant abiotic components. To others, ecosystems are primarily governed by stochastic events, the reactions they provoke on non-living materials and the corresponding responses by organisms. (Wikipedia)

NeoOffice

While sitting in a boring meeting, getting annoyed at sales reps from Microsoft enthusiastically praising trusted computing. When I questioned them why anyone would give all that power to one corporate entity they replied that they couldn’t see why not –

“so long as you trusted Microsoft everything is fine…”

Honest – I was speechless! Can you imagine me speechless?

Anyway during the meeting I downloaded the latest version of NeoOffice for mac (Download NeoOffice 2.0 Aqua Beta 3). It looks pretty good and seems to start faster too.

NeoOffice is a fully-featured set of office applications (including word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and drawing programs) for Mac OS X. It is based on the OpenOffice.org office suite.

Free Software & Microsoft Sales Reps

Due to a colleague calling in sick I jumped in and gave a short presentation on Free Software & Open Standards to IT technicians at my university. Following my presentation two salesmen from Microsoft presented the corporate visions of the future and a short demo of the coming Vista and Office software.

The first salesman after hearing my presentation insisted on talking about how “Free Software” microsoft was. Since they were involved in several projects intended to define open standards this made, according to him, Microsoft – Free Software.

Should someone tell Balmer?

I bit my tongue when he spoke about all this and about trusted computing. It was all too much. He was so positive that the inconsistencies were only embarrasing.
He also was lyrical about schools without books and the fact that many university students are not able to use basic excel – something he felt the university should teach them. So I shut up while he praised the dumming down of universities.

I will get him during the break… Or maybe not… it’s just too embarassing to listen to.

Internet Filtering Vietnam

A new country report has been released by the Open Net Initiative (ONI) Internet Filtering in Vietnam in 2005-2006: A Country Study (PDF Version)

About the ONI:

The ONI mission is to investigate and challenge state filtration and surveillance practices. Our approach applies methodological rigor to the study of filtration and surveillance blending empirical case studies with sophisticated means for technical verification. Our aim is to generate a credible picture of these practices at a national, regional and corporate level, and to excavate their impact on state sovereignty, security, human rights, international law, and global governance.

Earlier reports from the ONI include:

The missing ideology of Creative Commons

In the continuing discussion on the governance of the iCommons (the international Creative Commons) we have seen warnings raised by some (for example Tomâ??s article) about the loss of the grassroots. Attempting to address these concerns writers are attempting to explain why the iCommons works and therefore criticism of it is unjustified. For example Golden Swamp writes that the iCommons is a network joining up the nodes. While the network is a nice metaphor vague enough to incorporate almost all fuzzy feelgood thoughts on the virtual organisation and loose alliances working towards common goals â?? what does the network really mean?

If the Commons was a network power would be evenly (more or less) spread over the network â?? this is not so. The power of the Commons emanates clearly from the central point of San Francisco. The closer you are to the epicentre the greater the power.

After experiencing the presence of Microsoft and the Soros Foundation at the iCommons summit Becky Hogge at Open Democracy writes a post with the title that says it all â??Who owns a movement?â??

The Creative Commons is a great idea. It is a set of licenses which people can use. It helps â??ordinaryâ?? people participate in the copyright discourse by visualising the fact that the binary situation of all or nothing copyright is not enough. But the Commons is not a movement in the sense of the Free Software Foundation whose basis is on ideology â?? the Copyleft ideology.

By being pragmatic the Commons has grown faster than many contemporary movements. However this pragmatism is also part of the problem. The emptiness of its ideology means that many of the participants in this movement fill it with what they think it represents. The shock (?) then of seeing Microsoft at â??theirâ?? summit shows the effects of pragmatism. Those who want to see the Commons as being based upon a Copyleft ideology quickly must realise that this is not going to happen.

Does ideology matter?

Yes! If the Commons is to be seen as a movement. Without a central ideology the movement (can it be a movement without an ideology?) cannot define its core values and eventually will splinter.

No! The licenses are simple, standard licenses and nothing else. Naturally even licenses reflect ideologies but they are not in themselves ideologies.

If the iCommons wants to become more than a set of licenses (which it seems to want) it must then discard its all to pragmatic position and be prepared to make some people unhappy. Without taking a stance, setting up a camp somewhere, attempting to please everyone â?? it cannot grow.

CC to version 3

At present the state-of-the-art Creative Commons licenses are at version 2.5 and now we begin the public process of making the transition to version 3. There are four main reasons for this move:

(a) Incorporate MIT negotiated amendments to all licenses (incl. Sampling) to enable MIT to switch over to using a standard CC BY-NC-SA license.
(b) Incorporate Debian negotiated amendments in the hope that they will declare some of our licenses (those without the NonCommercial and NoDerivatives license elements) â??freeâ?? according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
(c) Spin off the current â??genericâ?? license to be the US license & (hopefully) create a real generic license.
(d) For those jurisdictions that protect the moral right of integrity, (i) incorporate an icon signifying the retention of this important right in the Commons Deed and, (ii) to ensure that the Legal Code for all of these jurisdictions expressly retains the right of integrity.

These are all important reasons but I am particularly interested in the moral rights (d) issue (maybe becuase I am from a jurisdiction which has moral rights) and the chance of being recognised as “free” according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (b) because it is important to interact with the Free Software movement in a deeper way. The Free Software movement not only predates CC it remains the most stringent among the movements which most people carelessly lump together as Open Source. For a longer discussion on this and the meaning of free software look here.

Do you want to participate in the process? Here is how…

It’s that fun time again when we start contemplating versioning up the licenses. An outline of why we’re thinking about doing this and how CC proposes to do this has just been posted to the cc-licenses list. Please participate in the discussions on the cc-licenses list – you can sign up here.

Submitted by Mia Garlick on 2006-05-17 04:07 PM.

Censorship of Underground Maps

I wrote about a website that has a collection of adapted maps from the London Underground. These maps include anagrams of the stations, rude versions of the stations, the availabiliyt of toilets, geographically realistic underground maps and more.

Sites such as these are important since they are excellent examples of the will and ability of individuals and groups to comment their own surroundings. This is naturally not always appreciated. Geofftech (the mapsite) has now recieved a legal letter demanding that he remove the maps or be taken to court.

Whether or not Geofftech is right or wrong is unimportant since he cannot afford legal representation. He has to remove the maps. Another victory for corporate censorship of free speech and the chilling effects of trademark law. Read about the legal threat here.

If you want to look at, and download, the maps then be quick – they have to be gone by Monday. www.geofftech.co.uk/tube/sillymaps/

23 days

Todays production was +1478 bringing the total up to 177 pages and 87 064 words. It was a good day.

And the countdown is still in the twenties. Today was lots of work on filters & censorship (Look at OpenNet iniative). On Yahoo! helping China chase cyberdissidents and Google creating a ideologically clean (Chinese style) search engine for China. Its obvious that the companies are bending over backwards to gain access to the Chinese market. Despite all the corporate retoric their actions speak louder than words.

censorship
Censorship by Eric Drooker

Reading tip for the weekend: Rosemary Coombe “Commodity Culture, Private Censorship, Branded Environments, and Global Trade Politics: Intellectual Property as a Topic of Law and Society Research