Linux users march on city hall (my title: Che Guevara to be raised from the dead)

Linux users march on city hall

A small but enthusiastic crowd of Linux lovers hit the streets of San Francisco on Thursday, hoping to trumpet the virtues of open source to lawmakers and voters.

Led by Michael Tiemann, chief technology officer of Linux seller Red Hat, the group marched the mile-long stretch from the LinuxWorld conference to San Francisco City Hall. There Tiemann unveiled the Digital Software Security Act, a proposal that would prohibit the state from buying software that doesn't open its code. Tiemann, wearing a red fedora and clutching a map so he could find his destination, said he also wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the state, which is one of the holdouts in the antitrust battle against Microsoft even as it runs the company's software in government offices.

"While they're spending money suing the monopolist, they're also feeding the monopolist with the other hand," Tiemann told the crowd.

The march attracted the zealous, the fearful and the merely curious.

One marcher, a hotshot Linux programmer who goes by the name of Tack, said it's important that government types listen to open-source advocates before passing laws dealing with technology. He said he's already suffering from federal laws that outlaw certain types of programming that could crack copy protections. "Instead of being able to focus on developing a new technology for my client, I have to think like a lawyer, said Tack, who described himself as a "freelance tech guy." "I don't want to land in jail."

Another marcher, Tim Sullivan, said the event is a chance for programmers to actively protect their right to code.

"I think this is a good chance to stand up for our freedoms," said Sullivan, 22, a computer science student at Oregon State University. "I'm not really a policy person, but it's pretty evident that it's ridiculous to stop people from writing software."

Forming a band of two dozen bobbing red hats, the group snaked through downtown San Francisco, stopping periodically to hear Tiemann cite rights eroded. He spoke of foreign programmers afraid to travel to the United States, content companies with too much power in Washington, and governments financially strangled by their reliance on proprietary software.

Hoping to reach regular folks, marchers wound up Market Street and past rows of outdoor chess players and department store bag-laden tourists. They stopped briefly at the Metreon shopping center, at a cable car turnaround, and finally, on the steps of city hall. Occasionally they chanted "Balance the budget. Switch to Linux." Few outsiders looked up from their activities to acknowledge the crowd.

At one point, marchers came across a historical plaque that was sponsored by Microsoft. They groaned and quickly papered over the software giant's name with a bumper sticker poking fun at proprietary software that doesn't allow programmers to tinker. "Why would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?" it read.

Turnout was on the low end of the 20 to 100 people Tiemann expected. Some programmers complained of the early 10:30 a.m. start time. One said he had to drag his friend out of bed. Others cited the fast clip of the gangly Tiemann, who took off promptly from the conference hall and rushed up the street, forcing some programmers to jog breathlessly behind him.

But open-source guru Bruce Perens, who marched alongside Tiemann, lamented that most technologists simply aren't paying attention. "It's obvious only a tiny bit of people from (LinuxWorld) turned out, and that presents a problem," he said. "Either they don't understand the issues or they have a business partnership that doesn't allow them to talk about it."

City officials did not greet the marchers when they arrived at city hall. Tiemann said he picked the city hall destination--despite the fact he's pushing his proposal at the state level--because it was the closest major government landmark to the LinuxWorld show. No state legislators have expressed official support for the bill, but Tiemann said he has some meetings planned with lawmakers in the next few days. State Assemblyman Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, has met with proposal author Walt Pennington but took no position one way or the other, spokesman George Balgos said.

The move comes as several government entities across the globe are considering legislation that would require considering open-source alternatives to proprietary software such as Microsoft's.

Not surprisingly, proponents of proprietary software are acting swiftly to quash such endeavors. The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTIA), a computer industry lobbying group that along with Microsoft has campaigned against open source, said a mandate to pick open software could drive IT companies out of business, endanger 200,000 technology jobs in the state, and restrict choice.

"Such purchase decisions should be made on the basis of objective criteria without a presumption that proprietary, hybrid or open-source software would be the best solution in every case stated," Grant Mydland, CompTIA's director of state government relations and grassroots programs, said in a statement Thursday.

You don't believe in MY property rights, tovarish. You see, my "widgits" are made of bits and letters of the alphabet. "IP" -- anathema to the marxistanarchistlibertarianoids.

The moment your legislators decided that my right to publish scientific findings was to be sacrificed to protect your "property" was the moment I decided your "property rights" don't mean a damn thing. Your "property" is a parasite that exists only to destroy the Bill of Rights. Face it, you're advocating censorship so you can make a buck. I have no problem prosecuting serious copyright offenders. I have a problem with people telling me I cannot publish any paper I want to as long as it falls within the guidelines of what is protected by the first amendment.

You only make yourself look like an idiot by bringing violent crime into a debate about free speech.

You're the one who brought up "public safety and national security" as a basis for measuring whether a particular violation of law merits enforcement, dood. See post #55:

"Or you are sued into bankrupcy by an industry trade group trying to use a corrupt law to supress your first amendment right to publish any writing or artistic work that does not endanger the national security of the United States or cause a clear and present danger to public safety. Copyright infringement does neither."

Don Joe pointed out violent crime as a means of showing you how absurd your system of measurement is.

Tell me something, college, boy. What college or university are you attending? Because someday, my kids are going to college ... and I'd sooner flush the tuition money down the toilet than subject them to the same anarcho-marxist indoctrination that you've apparently swallowed.

Tell me something, college, boy. What college or university are you attending? Because someday, my kids are going to college ... and I'd sooner flush the tuition money down the toilet than subject them to the same anarcho-marxist indoctrination that you've apparently swallowed.

First of all, how many Marxists stand up in front of their class and say that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno should face a firing squad for what happened at Ruby Ridge, Waco, the selling of US military secrets, bombing of a purely civilian target in the Sudan, bombing of Serbia, et al? Guess what? I must be one wierd ass Marxists, because I did that on at least one occassion during Clinton's last years in office.

Do you believe in welfare services of any kind? How about free healthcare for anyone other than government employees who earned it as a part of an employment contract with the government (ie veterans)? What about student loans, "public" house, etc? I don't believe in any of that. No medicare, no social security, no welfare, no free or reduced housing, no EIC, nothing.

I don't believe in eminent domain except when national security demands it. I believe a phased withdrawl from government-run schools to completely privatized education is a necessary goal for the US. Go ahead, call me an anarchist because I believe that the ideal goal for the future of the state is that it provides only 4 services: police, courts, military and public roads.

Microsoft has a right to sell just about whatever it wants to the public. It does not however have the right to determine what terms it will sell its products if those terms force customers to give up any rights. IP vendors are the only companies that have the luxury of making one product, duplicating it at virtually no cost and then telling customers "oh btw, you don't own that." Is society better off that software companies sell licenses rather than feux physical property? No. Software, music, movies, etc should not be treated really any differently from anything else that is sold. Buy a copy of OfficeXP? It should be yours to install on every PC you own.

As for your kids going to college, don't worry. If they are even half as bad at reading comprehension as you, college expenses won't even be a consideration for you.

Translation: "The Constitution is inconvenient and will therefore be suspended. Please drop your guns, car and house keys, and paychecks at the door."

The Constitution says that the purpose of IP law is to advance the sciences and the arts. The Constitution also says, "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech." I fail to see the conflict. Congress shall pass no copyright law that abridges freedom of speech. Only in America is a monetary gift considered free speech and an academic research paper inline with the USSC's rulings on speech, contraband. Go back and look at the history of the Bill of Rights, it was ratified after the body of the Constitution (which contains the IP clause) thus the Bill of Rights supercedes IP law. BTW, that also means that Congress has no authority to regulate the interstate sale of firearms.

"What part of 'Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech.' You only make yourself look like an idiot by bringing violent crime into a debate about free speech. Violent crime is not speech, nor is it art. Writing an essay on the flaws and potential ways to exploit said flaws of a DRM system is a form of speech. If it neither endangers national security nor puts the public at risk of harm then it is protected by the first amendment. In a society that actually follows its Constitution, my right to publish the flaws in your software and potential means (ie not code, but maybe an algorithm) to exploit them outweigh your IP protection."

Theft of property is not "free speech". Hell, you probably think spam is "free speech" too, doncha.

Good grief you're a real piece of work you are. That bit about your right to my property outweighing MY rights to it was prime, really prime, Mr. Trotsky.

The moment your legislators decided that my right to publish scientific findings was to be sacrificed to protect your 'property' was the moment I decided your 'property rights' don't mean a damn thing. Your 'property' is a parasite that exists only to destroy the Bill of Rights."

And you wonder why people perceive you as a commie?

Here's a hint, Mr. Marx -- if you don't want people to think you're a commie, then try to tone down the non-stop commie propaganda that rolls off your tongue like s#hit out a goose's ass.

Or better yet, don't stop. I'd hate to let the Libertarians slip by without people seeing what they're really like.

Theft of property is not "free speech".

If someone is going around giving out your IP, I agree, lock them up. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the government telling me I cannot publish potential research information on flaws in your products and means to exploit them (albeit without working source code). I have no problem with going after Napster, AG, Chinese bootleggers etc. I have a problem with people like Dr. Feldman and Dmitry Sklyarov having their lives, liberty and property endangered because of research. What part of Congress has no jurisdiction to keep them from publishing that information can you not wrap your brain around? I have no right to your property just as you have no right to even suggest to a member of Congress that restricting a scientific researcher's publishing rights might be a good thing(tm).

You sure changed your tune in a hurry, tovarish. Did someone smack your pee-pee or something? It's really weird watching you backpedal at warp speed.

It'll be a lot more interesting to see how good you are at backpedaling when/if the Secret Service pays you a visit over your "firing squad" braggadocio. Or maybe it'll be the BATF over your stated contemp for interstate gun laws?

In any event, please report back after the dust settles, it will really brighten our day!

"I believe that the ideal goal for the future of the state is that it provides only 4 services: police, courts, military and public roads."

What? No Fire Department?

Oh, that's right -- you're a Libertarian.

I'll never forget the day the Libertarians explained to me how in their Perfect World the Fire Department would be on a fee-for-services basis, and if your house was burning down, and you called the Fire Department, and you didn't have the means to pay them, they'd stand idly by and watch your house burn down.

Yup, nice bunch you are.

I put "property" in parenthesis [sic] because you implied that you own the copy of software you sold to someone. That's like calling Ford the rightful owner of my friend's Escort. Legal products are legal products. A=A in my world. In your world A=B.

I have no idea what you're nattering on about. I see no instance of the word "property" in parentheses, nor does the rest of your incoherent tirade compute.

As to software that I write, if I sell you "a copy" (term of convenience), you have rights to use it in accord with whatever terms are stated in the contract. If it says "one computer", you have a right to use it on one computer. If it says "site license", you have a right to use it on all your computers on the described site -- and none off-site. If it says "not for resale", you may not resell it. If it says you may sell it, but only if you deliver all materials to the buyer, and erase all copies from your possession, then you may not sell it unless you comply with the terms of that contract.

I guess all that bulls#it I hear from the Libertarians about how they hold contracts in such high regard is exactly that -- bulls#it. Because frankly, the more I look at the Libertarians, the more I see an increasingly self-marginalized, self-deluded, self-contradictory gaggle of losers. In every sense of that word.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.