Posted on 08/15/2002 4:54:26 PM PDT by Bush2000
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.
IIRC, the local party apparatchiks would handle that. I'm pretty certain I've heard from the horse's patooie (a Big-L'er) that tax collection should be "contracted out" to the private sector.
But now that we have an example of how the Libertarians seem to think contracts should be honored, I wonder how things would work in their Perfect World.
Bzzzz. Tiemann et all are proposing legislation, not theft. I know Perens, I've talked to Tiemann, I may not always agree with them but they are honest actors, intent on doing the right thing. They are like gun owners, determined to be law-abiding but slowly being driven into a corner by a legislative machine intent on pandering to special interests without a care for the Constitution.
It's pretty obvious that copyright and patent were intended as a compromise clearly securing limited rights for creators. Absolute rights would stifle the progress of civilization one way, no rights another. Many people feel the DMCA (unfairly and fairly) tilted the situation firmly in the direction of absolute rights. Microsoft (and RIAA, MPAA, etc) does not act honestly in seeking to criminalize fair use and stifle dissenting viewpoints as un-american. If they want to impose contracts securing indefinite rights with terms revisable at will, all protected by force of criminal law, I expect there will be trouble....
That's really funny, because I have been saying the same throughout the duration of this asinine thread.
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.
I advocated the government placing him under arrest on charges of murder, conspiracy to committ murder, treason, perjury and campaign finance law violations. I accused him of being a war criminal and a murderer in my class. Murders and war criminals when convicted are executed as a general rule. The SS could care less about such statements. They only have ~2,000 agents. They don't have the manpower to waste on bull$hit like that.
Or maybe it'll be the BATF over your stated contemp for interstate gun laws?
I have violated no law. I say that they have no place being on the books since Congress has no such authority. I do not own a firearm and probably wouldn't for the concievable future. The BATF has no more reason to give a rat's ass about me than it does about the average NRA member.
In any event, please report back after the dust settles, it will really brighten our day!
Hmmm, sounds like a bad attempt at a threat. Good for a chuckle. Had that come from Bush2000, I'd have just laughed since I would have known he was being tongue-in-cheek about it. I think you are actually taking yourself seriously....
A=[A-Za-z_0-9];
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a libertarian. My views are simply better represented by the LP than the Republicrats as a general rule. The LP gave the DMCA two thumbs down, the National Socialist Democratic Republican Party gave it a standing ovation as its pranced down Pennsylvania Avenue like a bunch of pansies to get Slick Willy(tm) to sign it into office.
"That's really funny, because I have been saying the same throughout the duration of this asinine thread."
Oh, really?
You're not the guy who used to say stuff like, "F#$% IP law, we don't need to obey such fascist drivel as that trash currently on the USC," and, "Just because you invented something does not give you a right to profit from it," and then claim a right to infringe on copyights, "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," and, "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," and, "Your 'property' is a parasite that exists only to destroy the Bill of Rights," and, "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," (which you have already redefined) and then you wax really marxical with, "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."
And then, out of the blue, you contradict all of your vile rant by claiming that, " I have no problem with going after Napster, AG, Chinese bootleggers etc."
And now you have the gall to claim that you've been saying "the same" thing throughout this thread?
What a comedian!
But then you have to go and ruin the mood by puking up a very paranoid hairball.
I said:
"In any event, please report back after the dust settles, it will really brighten our day!" following my musing over when/if the feds would visit you over your "firing squad" ravings WRT the former President (which they are known to follow up, with gusto).
To which you replied, in full paranoid dress:
"Hmmm, sounds like a bad attempt at a threat. Good for a chuckle. Had that come from Bush2000, I'd have just laughed since I would have known he was being tongue-in-cheek about it. I think you are actually taking yourself seriously...."
You're a real piece of work, tovarish!
I never said you were a libertarian, I said you were a Libertarian, after reading your traffic espousing Libertarian dogma and your voting history (which you supplied).
Funny you'd all of a sudden deny it this deep into the thread, since it's been a running issue for the past 80 odd posts.
#1, I believe people should disobey unconstitutional laws. #2, I do not believe that IP protection is a right, but I do believe physical property protection very much is. #3 I believe that in every single instance physical property rights and civil rights such as free speech/firearm ownership must supercede IP protection because IP is a social convention, not a natural right which we are all born with (as is the case with physical property). #4 I have no respect for your IP priveleges if they conflict with the natural right of any individual to publish scientific findings or to manufacture legitimate products (ie anything other than WMDs, kiddie porn and stuff like that).
To which you replied, in full paranoid dress:
LOL! Calm down. ASCII is not good for displaying emotions. I really didn't take you seriously. I knew that you weren't going to try some $hit like report me. I was just screwing with your head. It's something I do for $hits and giggles.
So in other words, "handwork" is protected, but "brainwork" is not. If my machine turns out widgets made of wood, plastic, glass, or metal, you will graciously allow my ownership of what I produce. But if my machine turns out words or bits, you claim them for the Public Good.
Yup, I can easily see Che' saying something like that. No stretch at all.
Keep yer mitts off my bits.
My body is in very poor condition. It is failing me. I am definitely unable to make a living as a housepainter or ditchdigger, a carpenter or oilrigger.
So, I work with my brain.
Now along comes He Who Votes Libertarian But Is Not Libertarian, Who Espouses Marxist Dogma, And Insists He's Not Marxist Because It Would Be Inconsistent With Being Libertarian-Which He Says He's Not (damn, I hate long, ostentatious titles), and informs me that he's gonna liberate my work for the common good.
Sorry, HWVLBINL..., but that is as *clearly* communism as the day is long.
I never said that. I believe that the distinction between physical property and IP needs to legally blurred. Software should be treated more like a physical commodity than IP. If I buy a copy of OfficeXP, Microsoft should not be legally allowed to include product activation any more than Honda should not be able to sell an Accord that only works for the first two owners, but needs confirmation from Honda before it'll start up for the third owner.
Keep yer mitts off my bits.
What software do you develop? I would like to try to avoid ever using it.
My body is in very poor condition. It is failing me. I am definitely unable to make a living as a housepainter or ditchdigger, a carpenter or oilrigger.
Sorry to hear that, but that does not give you legitimate reason to push for stronger copyright laws that violate the US Constitution nor does it give you the right to turn your customers into serfs.
informs me that he's gonna liberate my work for the common good.
You have obviously brainwashed yourself. Go on, keep believing that. I obviously cannot convince you otherwise and it would be a waste of my time to continue trying. You'd find that I hold the very idea of a "common good" in deep contempt on most threads.
I'm assuming that you're implying unsolicited commercial email. Many people think any email they don't want is spam...
No, it isn't free speech anymore than sending a junk fax and for essentially the same reasons.
No McCarthy, I bought a copy of the software, a collection of bits on media. I should be able to take that media, load it onto my computer, copy it for backup purposes, customize and configure it to my liking, and resell it after destroying my copy, just as I can with any other IP. The software company owns their IP, I own the right to customize, backup, and find out out it works in order to create new works that do not infringe on their IP. The idea that companies should control all usage of their sold porducts is a threat to inovation and consumer rights. McCarthy, consumers have rights, don't they?
More marxist/statist ravings. Are you a Libertarian too? Seems like the Libertarians (or those who identify with them even as they deny affiliation) are the main contendas for the marxist/statist argument that two entities should be prohibited from entering into a transaction the terms of which are defined by a contract.
No, tovarish, I'm talking about Unsolicited Bulk Email.
I don't care if it's from Sanford Wallace or Mother Theresa. If it's bulk s#it clogging up my inbox, then it's spam.
How has Microsoft merged with our governement?
I like that...I'm gonna use that in my profile if you don't mind!
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.