> A user has sent you the following story from > NewsForge: > > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Ken Brown's corporate-funded FUD > | > | posted by warthawg on Tuesday May 25, @09:00 > (linux) | > | > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/05/24/2145237 > | > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > Ken Brown's forthcoming book, published by the > Alexis de Tocqueville > Institution, is embarrassingly mistitled Samizdat: > And Other Issues > Regarding the 'Source' Of Open Source Code. No doubt > you've heard of it by > now, although more than likely you've only heard > [0]Andy Tanenbaum and > others respond to it more than anything else. It's > basically the world's > largest [1]troll, seasoned with more than a hint of > flamebait. In the > history of publishing there has never been a less > scrupulous work than this > book. It's a stinging insult to real books and > genuine authors everywhere, > harming the credibility of all of us who write for a > living. > > "From this foul drain pure gold flows forth. Here it > is that humanity > achieves for itself both perfection and > brutalisation, that civilisation > produces its wonders, and that civilized man becomes > again almost a savage." > > That was said in the 1830s about Manchester, > England, but we could also say > that it applies to the World Wide Web today, with > its treasure trove of > information and its piles of horrible drivel. I'll > give Ken Brown a dollar > if he can guess who originally said the above quote > (without looking it up). > > The quote brings to light the fact that opposite > extremes are a reality and > a consequence of freedom; if you give people the > freedom to say anything, > eventually they will. While good ideas are passed > around and improved upon > in the tradition of the scientific community, there > is also a dark side to > free publishing: that of the corporate agenda. I > think the main difficulty > that some corporations are experiencing is the rough > transition from the > Industrial Age of big powerful businesses and > smoke-filled board room > meetings to the Information Age of work-from-home > CEOs and the general > sharing of ideas and technologies. They're scared > and they're fighting to > keep their way of life. > > It wasn't all that long ago that corporate buffoons > realized that they could > use the Internet to do some guerrilla marketing for > their company or > product, but the unethical and immoral tactics now > used by the corporate > world seem to be aimed primarily at influencing > political policy. Never > before has freedom of speech ever threatened itself > so ferociously; here we > have people speaking out in order to attempt to > limit what others can say > through software. > > It's not that political pieces haven't been written > in the past, some -- > like Thomas Paine's Common Sense -- are superbly > written, well-researched, > astoundingly observant, and recommend sensible and > effective action. It's > works like these that advance society by stirring > the emotions of the > complacent and energizing political change, > sometimes on the scale of a > revolution. > > To really pull off this kind of coup d'etat you have > to first be an > extraordinary writer. You have to have an insight > into what you're talking > about -- you need to present compelling and > convincing evidence to suggest > that change is necessary. There needs to be some > great problem that has not > been properly addressed and you have to have the > best solution for it. And > then you write, publish, distribute, and wait. > That's how it's done; that's how a genuine political > piece comes into being. > > The aim of a political piece is generally to spark a > phenomenon known as the > "grass-roots" effort. This is when an issue or ideal > is so important or > influential that a large group of people > collectively decides to promote and > support it. It's been the magic behind the sudden > success of underdog > political campaigns and starving artists and > musicians for hundreds of > years. > > What we have in Ken Brown's book is a poorly crafted > attempt to author a > political piece whose sole interest is the corporate > agenda of proprietary > software companies and fanatical right-wing > organizations. > Its goal is to destroy the grass-roots efforts of > the GNU/Linux community. > If it were well-written, expertly researched, and > shockingly observant, it > might accomplish at least part of its goal; however, > it is none of those > things. Free Software is not in any danger from this > book, but the > institution of printed books has been irreparably > harmed. > > Show me the evidence > > "A new world demands a new political science." > > The concept of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is > not new, but it has > become such a popular battle tactic on the Internet > that you can hardly read > tech news anymore without seeing it somewhere. > Ordinarily, most people > recognize it for what it is -- corporate propaganda > meant to stop a genuine > grass-roots effort -- and ignore it. But with > Samizdat we have a whole new > kind of attack. Instead of aiming at the end-users > and potential customers > of the world -- which has proven ineffective thus > far > -- the target is now the United Stated government > and those in charge of > determining public policy. Having lost the battle > for public opinion, the > war has now gotten more desperate and moved on to > attempting to influence > the laws that we live by. This goes beyond the usual > lobbying that > corporations do because it's disguised as an > independent study by an > impartial third party and published as a book > instead of a bound report, > white paper, or traditionally published study (in a > peer-review > publication). > > Proper FUD requires knowing the facts and then > distorting them for your > purposes. In other words a FUD-spreader is a liar, > although frequent liars > generally lie to themselves about their lying, so I > don't think they > consider FUD to be dishonest. Any distortion of the > known truth is a lie, no > matter how little it has been changed or altered. In > the absence of facts to > support beliefs or agenda, FUD goes from lying to > implying. > There is, for instance, no evidence to suggest that > Linus Torvalds > improperly used code from Minix or Unix in order to > build the Linux kernel, > but by talking around the subject you can create > uncertainty and doubt about > the situation. You can say it's highly unlikely that > someone with Linus's > experience at the time could write their own > operating system, that it's > impossible to make Linux work like Unix without > breaking the law, that Linus > had access to the Minix code at the time of his > Linux-writing. Of course the > truth of the matter is that Linux is not a whole > operating system, it's just > a kernel, and the author of Minix has said that it's > impossible to have > copied the Minix code because it's of a totally > different design philosophy. > FUD-throwers take every piece of information they > can find and put a > negative spin on it, and although they never manage > to come up with any > facts, proof, or evidence to support their claims, > they do paint a grim > portrait of their subject. I believe that any FUDder > should be labeled and > treated as they truly are: > an outright liar. > > The term "FUD" has been overused lately. It has come > to mean any information > that is contrary to the reader's opinion. As a tech > journalist I see it all > the time -- people accuse me of FUD when I say > things that they disagree > with. The key to look for is whether facts or > logical conclusions are being > drawn based on experience, or whether the author is > talking around a subject > trying to get you to create doubt about something > without any decent > evidence to back it up. In this article I discuss > verifiable facts that you > yourself can obtain by contacting or reading the > listed sources, so even if > you think I'm wrong in my reasoning or conclusions > you must concede that > this is not FUD by the proper definition. Kenneth > Brown cannot make the same > claim -- not remotely. > > The only shocking aspect of Ken Brown's book is that > it contains not one > shred or iota of evidence to back any of his > implications. While he doesn't > directly accuse, he also doesn't present any good > reasons to believe that we > should listen to him. The bibliography, for > instance, has > 81 items of reference, less than five of which are > traditionally recognized > reference sources. The greater part of Brown's > sources are personal Web > pages of people who are not considered experts in > the field of Unix, Linux, > GNU, or other related subjects, home pages of people > who are considered > experts but were speaking generally about the > subject of the history of > Unix, and quotes taken grossly out of context from > interviews that Brown did > not conduct or take part in. > > You don't have to be an author or professional > writer to know that when > presenting an argument professionally, the strength > of your sources is the > strength of your position. With no reliable sources, > a position paper, > thesis, or essay carries no more weight than the > Anonymous Coward comments > on weblogs and message forums -- in other words, > it's bunk. For > entertainment purposes only. Read at your own risk. > Worse than bunk, it's > FUD because it pushes an agenda without presenting > any proof. > > To better illustrate my point about FUD, I'd like to > specifically show an > example of the kind of things the Brown does in this > book. At one point he > quotes Linus Torvalds in an interview with Eric > Raymond, an Open Source > community leader and the founder of the Open Source > Initiative (OSI), as > saying, "I'm basically a very lazy person who likes > to get credit for things > other people actually do." > > Ken Brown never comes out and accuses Linus of > stealing copyrighted code or > reverse-engineering or trade secret theft or > anything else that would get > him sued. But he does talk around those subjects, > and in this quote Brown > has taken Linus's words out of context in an attempt > to make it look like > Linus smugly admitted wrongdoing. Taken on its face, > it's rather damning. > But let's look at the context as quoted from Eric > Raymond directly, from his > essay, [2]The Cathedral and the Bazaar: > > In fact, I think Linus's cleverest and most > consequential hack was > not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, > but rather his > invention of the Linux development model. When I > expressed this > opinion in his presence once, he smiled and > quietly repeated > something he has often said: "I'm basically a very > lazy person who > likes to get credit for things other people > actually do." Lazy like a > fox. Or, as Robert Heinlein famously wrote of one > of his characters, > too lazy to fail. > > So first of all, it was not an interview with > Raymond -- it was a casual > encounter and it was relayed via anecdote, and it > was used to illustrate > [3]the importance of having users as co-developers. > When we see the context > of this quote it is clear that what Linus meant when > he said that (and what > Raymond was talking about here) was that Linus' > great invention was not the > Linux kernel but the development model by which it > is enhanced. Linus wrote > the kernel but other people are improving it; since > he's the boss and since > it was his idea to begin with, he gets the credit > for the final product even > though the contributors own the rights to their own > code and are properly > credited for it within the kernel code. > Is that such a revelation -- or more appropriately, > is that a crime or > immoral deed? This is the way the kernel is > developed, this is the way Open > Source development works. Authors of code get credit > for what they > contribute, Linus does not -- you don't have to do > much research to discover > that. This is part of what Tim Witham of the OSDL > calls the quid pro quo of > the Open Source development model. By inventing the > kernel, Linus's return > on that investment of time and skill is that other > people get to improve it > for him for free. > > When I asked Linus about this quote he replied: > > Heh. I _like_ that quote. > > Of course, the context there is that I've been > getting a lot too much > credit for Linux, considering that there literally > have been > thousands of people involved. > > No "stealing of code" anywhere, but the simple > fact that it's much > too easy to forget that Linux has been a > collaborative project, and > that especially for the last five years I've been > acting as a > _manager_, not so much as a code writer. > > The fact that Brown seems to take it out of > context and try to make > it be something it isn't is his problem, quite > frankly. I don't know > when (or even if) I said the above, but honestly, > it sounds like me, > and it's accurate. > > But yes, facts can be used out of context, and > twisted. Too bad. I > don't actually want to have anything to do with > that Brown person, he > seems to be a slimeball. > > Linus > > When good sources go bad > > Brown repeatedly refers to Linus' work with Andrew > Tanenbaum's Minix > operating system as an example of some kind of > wrongdoing. I'm not sure if > Ken Brown wants us to think that Linus stole some of > Tanenbaum's Minix code > or whether he wants us to think that it's wrong to > create a workalike > program. The latter is definitely a theme throughout > the book; time and > again Brown implies that workalikes are somehow > morally and legally wrong. > > Andy Tanenbaum provided no useful ammunition for > Brown despite the fact that > he flew to Europe just to interview him, a rather > puzzling fact. Why would > Ken Brown fly to Amsterdam to interview someone > peripheral to his book and > then totally ignore Linus Torvalds, who is > practically the main character in > this corporate fantasy novel? When he does interview > Tanenbaum he digs for > dirt on Linus, probably figuring that Tanenbaum held > some grudge against him > because of a silly debate the two had some years ago > about kernel > architecture. Tanenbaum instead tells him that it > was impossible for Linus > to have copied Minix code or design because Minix > used a totally different > architecture -- if Brown had read the initial debate > that I mentioned > previously, he would have known that. > Stealing any significantly useful portion of Minix > code to put into Linux is > as fruitless as stealing diesel fuel to put into a > gasoline engine. > > Tanenbaum then noted that there were "some extremely > serious errors" in > Brown's book and [4]published a note relating his > strange and unusual > experiences with Brown, followed by a [0]somewhat > lengthy addendum, none of > which reflected well on Kenneth Brown and his odd > and unprofessional > methods. > > The Minix source code was published as part of a > book that Tanenbaum wrote > on operating system design, published by Prentice > Hall. Ken Brown's > ridiculousness moves on to the publisher, stating > that PH has probably lost > its ability to sue Linus for imaginary copyright > infringement. He says that > "it is unclear if ATT or Prentice are paying > attention to Linux > development," but really all he had to do was ask if > he really wanted to > know the answer to that. It's not like AT&T and > Prentice Hall are > unapproachable to the media. > > Maybe he realized that it doesn't matter what AT&T > thinks because they don't > control the rights to Unix anymore and haven't for > some time. > [5]The Open Group owns the trademark for Unix, the > [6]SCO Group claims to > own the copyright to the last edition of "true" Unix > (System V Release 4) > and [7]Novell claims to own both the copyrights and > the patents involved > with it (this is in dispute as of this writing; it > is unclear whether SCO or > Novell own the copyright to the code). SCO would > have provided Brown with > some rather juicy quotes -- I'm surprised that he > didn't make an effort to > contact them, difficult as it is these days. In fact > neither SCO nor The > Open Group is mentioned even once in the copy of the > book that I had access > to. This is yet more evidence to suggest that > Kenneth Brown is a poor > researcher. > > That he mentioned Prentice Hall is a joke. PH is one > of the world's largest > GNU/Linux distributors (by including CDs with books) > and makes more money > off of GNU/Linux than it ever did off of Minix. I > contacted Prentice Hall > and asked for a comment on Brown's book but did not > receive a response > before this article went to press. > > Next: The man behind the mask > > The trouble with people who think that they are > clever is that their own > hubris often is their primary foible. The archetype > of the somewhat > intelligent yet too arrogant antagonist is an > ancient and well-worn > character in the western world. Kenneth Brown seems > to fit this mould > precisely. While his writing is structured and > coherent, his thinking and > reasoning are amateurish and depend on "cheap > tricks," literary devices > known as begging the question and circular > reasoning. > > For those who don't know, begging the question means > that you assume facts > that are not in evidence in order to carry your > argument to a point at which > it cannot directly be refuted without going back to > prove or dispute the > assumed facts. The classic example of this is the > question, "So when did you > start beating your wife?" This assumes that your > wife is being beaten and > that you are the batterer, but there is no apparent > proof to hold up these > claims. Since the question assumes facts not in > evidence, the only proper > way to respond is to clarify the facts and demand > proof that they are valid. > In a circular argument, an unproven statement is > restated to come back on > itself, thus giving the appearance of "proof" when > actually all the writer > did was answer cleverly restate the same phrase. > > An example would be, "The charge that I beat my wife > is totally untrue > because I would never do something like that." These > are the fundamental > building blocks of FUD -- you cannot have FUD > without begging the question, > and the occasional circular argument helps the cause > as well although the > latter requires some skill to achieve. > > What Kenneth Brown has done in Samizdat is to > presume that the Linux kernel > contains misappropriated code and/or was illegally > "reverse-engineered" from > proprietary Unix, and further implies that Linus and > the community at large > were the perpetrators of these crimes. > Then Brown uses these false and erroneous > conclusions to suggest that this > may be an act of malice by Linus Torvalds and the > Open Source community to > attack proprietary software corporations for their > own gain. > > Any reasonably intelligent person would figure that > such a bold endeavor as > this book would include compelling and convincing > evidence to give weight to > the kinds of questions that Brown raises to cast > doubt on his subjects. > Appallingly, there is no evidence, no interview, no > paper trail, photograph, > or substantiated reference to support any of Brown's > negative assertions and > in fact most of his references do more to hurt his > stance than support it. > It is the worst journalism, the worst research, the > worst case of abuse of > the literary and technical world that I have ever > had the profound > displeasure of reading. Ken Brown would make Michael > Moore, Jayson Blair, > and Darl McBride blush with the kind of shoddy, > irresponsible work that he's > published in Samizdat. Truly this book is a test of > the tolerance of free > speech in America. > > Who is behind the writing of Samizdat? It is > unreasonable to assume that any > single individual would go to these lengths to > mislead the public. > There is no way that, in writing this, Brown did not > know that he was > circumventing the facts in favor of a false truth. I > say this in part > because [8]he posted messages to the Open-Source > Licensing mailing list > asking loaded questions and getting very clear > answers from knowledgeable > people. Furthermore his motivation was [9]apparently > unmasked by one of the > list members back in September. The email, written > by Rick Moen, sums up Ken > Brown's reasoning perfectly by saying, "In short, > you've been doing > something of a Beltway Bandit lobbyist dance for > us." Other group members > asked Ken Brown to cease publishing private email > addresses and using racial > slurs on the list. > > Moen also suggests that Brown was funded by > Microsoft, and points to [10]an > interesting analysis of Ken Brown's other writing on > Free and Open Source > Software. [11]Our own Roblimo also had some things > to say about Kenneth > Brown and his corporate agenda. > > It is logical to assume that the perceived victims > in the fantastical Ken > Brown scenario are his benefactors. The reason why > this assumption is made > is because all other possibilities have been removed > from the equation. > First, Brown is on record in the below-referenced > Tanenbaum interview as > saying that AdTI does "public policy work" and they > "publish papers and > books," and he adamantly refused to reveal his > funding sources. > > The book was not written as a public service because > it does not present > both sides of the issue evenly and even contains > knowingly misleading > language -- there is no way, as mentioned before, > that Brown could have > written this without at some point becoming aware > that he was attempting to > mislead people. > > It was not done for revenge -- Brown has no known, > obvious, or logical > motives. It was not written to sell books, as far as > I can tell, because > even controversial books rely on facts and real > interviews with the subject > or subjects of the book. Brown did not interview > Linus Torvalds at all, > instead relying on a very quick interview with > Richard Stallman and a very > strange interview with Andrew Tanenbaum, who in > [4]his initial response to > Brown's book characterized him as: > > ...not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I was > already > suspicious. As a long-time author, I know it makes > sense to at least > be aware of what the competition is. He didn't > bother. > > Kenneth Brown didn't seem to have done one bit of > research before the > Tanenbaum interview even though he claimed he was > writing a book on the > history of Unix. Samizdat is not about the history > of Unix although it does > go over some of it. Either he lied to Tanenbaum or > he changed the focus of > his book since the interview. > > Brown was repeatedly given good, factual information > and he repeatedly > twisted it to work for his purposes. But why would > someone do this on > purpose? It's time to dig a little deeper and find > out who Ken Brown is and > what his agenda might be. > > According to [12]his CV, Brown is or was recently > the vice president of a > company called the Emerging Markets Group, which > doesn't have a Web site, > apparently. Also involved in this company is/was the > chairman of the Alexis > de Tocqueville Institution, Gregory Fossedal. > Interestingly, [13]Fossedal > recommended that investors buy SCO stock as recently > as October of 2003, > which was long past the point when anyone thought > SCO could win against IBM. > In that same article he also talked up Bill Gates as > "brilliant" and > condemned the sharing of a program's source code > under any conditions, > blasting the Open Source development approach in the > process. So it seems > this book has been brewing for quite a while, and > evidence suggests that > both SCO and Microsoft could be involved. > > The usual suspects > > "The profession of the law is the only aristocratic > element which can be > amalgamated without violence with the natural > elements of democracy." > > Rick Moen thought that Microsoft was the man behind > the curtain, and Andy > Tanenbaum suspected both Microsoft and the infamous > SCO Group. Indeed those > two unscrupulous corporate schemers are the prime > suspects. Other companies > just don't make any sense -- Corel and Macromedia > are actively working to > port some of their software to GNU/Linux. Apple > relies on Open Source > technology as the basis for their OS X operating > system. Intel and AMD both > employ programmers to work on Open Source Software > and both are members of > the [14]Open Source Development Lab, as are IBM, > Novell, Sun Microsystems, > HP, Computer Associates, and [15]many more. Since > these companies are > actively contributing to the Open Source community > and are even offering > money and equipment to help make GNU/Linux more > enterprise-friendly, we can > assume that they are probably not behind Ken Brown's > smear campaign. That > doesn't leave too many monied players in the > technology world. > > We can further reduce the list of suspects by > examining who stands to lose > from the GNU General Public License. In all of Ken > Brown's writings he has > one common and specific target: the GPL. He even > goes so far as to suggest > in his book that "pure free source code" (licensed > under the BSD license or > other non-GPL Free Software licenses) is okay and > that it should be used as > Tanenbaum uses Minix -- to teach in universities. > But he doesn't feel that > it has any place in the business world, and he calls > the GNU Project, Linux, > and all GPLed work "hybrid Open Source" because > they're often sold and used > commercially. Kenneth Brown's astonishing lack of > understanding of the Free > and Open Source Software world is a farce -- > actually I think he > understands, but he obfuscates what he knows so that > it has a negative tone. > This I am convinced of -- no one with half a brain > could do this much > writing and research and fail to grasp such simple > and oft-repeated concepts > which were explained to him in detail on the > license-discuss list referenced > above. Brown hardly mentions BSD in his book and > fails to mention FreeBSD, > OpenBSD, and NetBSD at all, further suggesting two > points: his research > skills are either substandard or selective, and he > has an axe to grind with > the GPL. > He might also view the BSDs as "pure free source" > because they're not under > the GPL, but their functionality is at a level that > is more than competitive > with proprietary software (and some say that the > BSDs are superior to > GNU/Linux in many ways) so I don't quite understand > why they are not also a > target of his derision. > > Here's where Ken screwed up: the "Free" in Free > Software refers to rights, > not price. There is no "hybrid" -- either a program > is free to use, modify, > and distribute, or it is not. The GPL ensures that > software stays free (as > in rights, not price!) in the future, unlike the BSD > and other Open Source > licenses which often have no such provision. Other > OSS licenses can place > restrictions on use or redistribution which > precludes the software they > govern from being Free Software even though they may > still qualify as Open > Source. Brown qualifies Red Hat Linux as a "hybrid" > Open Source product not because it might contain > proprietary programs in > addition to Free Software, but because it is sold > and used commercially. > This is, as far as I can tell, yet another > purposeful obfuscation of the > difference between "free as in rights" and "free as > in price." It's not a > difficult concept, but it's an easy point of > confusion if you're trying to > paint Free Software in a negative light. > > Back to our question: who stands to lose from the > GPL? Both Microsoft and > SCO do, as they have directly and indirectly stated > many times in the press; > there seem to be no other players in the industry > that have so much at stake > when it comes to the success of Free Software and > the legality and validity > of the GNU GPL. So now that we have some viable > suspects the next question > is, did one or both of these companies fund or > support AdTI? [16]Microsoft > funded them in the recent past and in fact the white > paper that was produced > from that funding -- Opening The Open Source Debate > -- was the precursor to > this book. It shared many of the same ideals, made > many of the same > accusations, and attempted to push readers in the > same direction as Samizdat > does. In fact it even went further, suggesting that > Open Source Software > could help aid terrorism. > > I could find no evidence of SCO funding. For all the > times I've tried in the > past, they never return calls or emails and I doubt > very much that they'd > tell me anyway. My feeling is that SCO doesn't have > the money to play these > kinds of silly games with; history dictates that > Darl McBride and his > cohorts are perfectly willing to generate their own > untruths for the press > and would probably view the Alexis de Tocqueville > Institution as > unnecessary. But interestingly enough if we go back > to the license-discuss > mailing list search for Ken Brown, we turn up > [17]this email asking about > the SCO lawsuit and Linux licensing issues. This is > not evidence of SCO > involvement, but it shows that SCO was definitely > not under Brown's radar > even though it didn't make it into his book. He > seems to show a distinct > hatred of IBM, using racial slurs and foul rumors to > describe IBM > representatives. Given this information it's also > possible that Brown's > attack on Open Source is an attack on IBM for their > support of it. > > Ken Brown's Final Solution > > The last part of Brown's book is the heart of the > matter: the one-page > public policy recommendation. Ken Brown wants the > government to make it > harder to use and create GPLed software. He wants > the government to do > something about the growing use of the Open Source > development model in > industry by giving more money to the USPTO and to > redirect government > funding of universities toward "true free source" in > cooperation with the IT > industry. > > So wait a minute -- he spends dozens of pages > attacking the GPL and Linus > Torvalds and Open Source, and then he wants the > government to give money to > colleges to fund Open Source development, even going > so far as to suggest > that corporations that support Open Source programs > at universities should > be given tax breaks? While it may sound like a > paradox, he's actually > pulling the old good cop/bad cop trick. He claims > that Open Source devalues > programs and eliminates due credit for invention. He > doesn't seem to > understand that GNU's Not Unix, consistently > equating all Unix-like > operating systems with the original trademarked > copyrighted Unix source > code. But then he ends the book, by saying how great > free (as in price and > rights) source code is -- as long as it's "true free > source" and that it's > only used in an academic environment where no one > needs to (or is able to) > make any money from it because it's all public > domain. > > I was curious as to why he brought up university > involvement. My questions > were answered by [18]Media Transparency, which > traces the money trail for > media organizations. [19]As you can see here, a > series of significant > donations come from [20]The Lynde and Harry Bradley > Foundation, an > ultra-right-wing lobby group based in Milwaukee. > What a coincidence that > John Norquist, the former mayor of Milwaukee, > Wisconsin, is on the board of > advisors for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. > So what does this > organization do? It gives money to influence public > policy, usually to try > to return the U.S. to a state of unregulated, > laissez-faire capitalism. In > this instance the donations are marked specifically, > "To support > education-reform research and activities." The > wording of that phrase seems > to be -- like all other things AdTI -- purposefully > ambiguous. It could > read, "To support education [through] reform, > research, and activities," or > "To support education reform [through] research and > activities," or "To > support education [through] research of reform and > activities." We can now > see why Brown has dragged university support and > corporate tax breaks into > this mess. > > The only common thread throughout the whole book is > that he doesn't think > Free Software should interfere with proprietary > software because that's > "real business" and it drives the economy. The OSDL > and its member > corporations strongly disagree with that notion -- > they think Open Source > Software is an excellent business method in the > classic quid pro quo sense. > Given that the OSDL includes member corporations > like IBM, Novell, and Red > Hat, all of which are financially successful, it > would appear that reality > interferes with Ken Brown's predictions and > recommendations. > It seems more like the corporations that are paying > AdTI to write these > ridiculous books and studies are trying to > underhandedly discredit their > competition through a third-party. > > Conclusions > > Microsoft has already tried to fake its own > grass-roots effort -- back when > they were facing antitrust violations in the U.S., > they paid people to try > to influence the public and the politicians to drop > the case. > Thereupon was coined the term "astroturfing," to > describe an artificial > grass-roots marketing campaign. Fortunately their > efforts backfired. But > here again we have Microsoft attempting to use > unethical guerrilla marketing > tactics to influence public opinion and public > policy by funding dishonest > studies. I must be getting old -- I still remember > the days when a superior > product and corporate accountability determined > public opinion and policy. > > Fortunately I think Microsoft and SCO are the last > of the holdouts, and > hopefully this article, with the help of those who > have been defamed by the > Alexis de Tocquevillains, can help put a stop to > this harassment in the > marketplace. > > The next question is, how to make them accountable > for their actions? > There's nothing illegal about funding a study. The > price of freedom is > discomfort and pain from time to time when the > unscrupulous and the feebly > tutored combine their efforts and resources to try > to force their way onto > innocent people. I do have a suggestion, however. > There are two members of > the AdTI board that are politicians: [21]Christopher > Cox, a member of the > House of Representatives for the state of > California, and [22]John Norquist, > the former mayor of Milwaukee. If you live in either > of their jurisdictions > you can contact them and ask them to remove their > support for the Alexis de > Tocqueville Institution based on the horrible > misinformation produced by its > president and chairman. > > Kenneth Brown is but the latest in a long and > ignoble line of corporate > drones and fools to show that anything can be > suggested (or proven) through > selective analysis. His purposeful misuse of quotes > and ignorance of the > basic facts underlying his arguments show that he > did his best to make an > impossible point. That's what he was paid to do, I > guess. Despite my rather > harsh analysis I can't help but think that I'm > giving Kenneth Brown too much > credit, considering what so many people have told me > privately about their > encounters with him. This little article is only a > fraction of the true > debunking that his book deserves, but to do it right > I'd have to write my > own book on the subject of Linux, GNU, BSD, and Unix > history and theory, and > I'm not sure that I'm prepared to do that presently > (of course, if some > publisher wanted to give me a decent advance...). > > I've only shown a handful of reasons why you should > not only ignore future > work by Ken Brown and AdTI, but why you should look > for ways to take action > against their intimidation tactics. It's not right > for mercenary groups like > the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to accept > money to terrorize innocent > people, especially at the behest of a powerful > corporation or funding group. > There are so many things wrong with this situation > that it's hard to know > where to begin. Write to Microsoft and demand > accountability (this does more > than you might realize; it makes them aware that you > know of their > underhanded tactics). > Write to the politicians listed above and demand > that they withdraw their > support. But most of all I feel that the best > overall remedy for this > situation is for all people to turn their backs to > these kinds of studies > and the "analysts" who write them. Don't submit > their links to Slashdot or > other discussion sites. Don't quote their work. > Don't give them any media > attention at all unless it is to debunk their lies > and propaganda with your > own intelligent and properly researched (actually, > any level of research is > superior to what these people are doing) response. > They say that any > publicity is good publicity, but that is not really > true -- enough bad > publicity, as SCO has proven, can ruin a company and > its officers. > > I love irony, but it's really a pity that the > institution that bears his > name should be so ill-used, as the real Alexis de > Tocqueville was an > intelligent and insightful man. I don't necessarily > agree with everything he > had to say, but he did have some interesting quotes > -- in fact the > unattributed quotes which begin some of the sections > of this very article > were authored by the real Alexis de Tocqueville. And > I got them from the > free Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia. > > Jem Matzan is the author of three books, a freelance > journalist and the > editor-in-chief of [23]The Jem Report. > > Links: > 0. > http://trends.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/05/21/2131224&tid=2 > 1. > http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/troll.html > 2. > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ > 3. > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s03. > html > 4. > http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/05/20/1427257&tid=85 > 5. http://www.theopengroup.org/ > 6. http://www.sco.com/ > 7. http://www.novell.com > 8. > http://www.mail-archive.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?config=license-discuss_opensour > ce_org&restrict=&exclude=&words=ken+brown > 9. > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg05605.html > 10. http://www.roaringpenguin.com/adti2.php3 > 11. > http://business.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/10/25/056218&tid=37 > 12. > http://www.digital-law.net/IJCLP/6_2001/authors/brown.html > 13. > http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/cy/Ubottomline-commentary.RYDL > _DO3.html > 14. http://www.osdl.org > 15. http://www.osdl.org/about_osdl/members/ > 16. > http://www.wired.com/news_drop/palmpilot/story/0,1325,52973,00.html > 17. > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg06520.html > 18. http://www.mediatransparency.org/ > 19. > http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?re > cipientID=7 > 20. > http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/bradley_foundation.htm > 21. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 22. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 23. http://www.thejemreport.com > > Discuss this story at: > > http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=04/05/24/2145237 > > To opt-out of further emailings: > http://www.newsforge.com/email.pl?op=optout_form > > Copyright 1997-2004 NewsForge. All rights reserved. > > ====================================================================== > > You have received this message because you > subscribed to it on NewsForge. > To stop receiving this and other messages from > NewsForge, or to add more > messages or change your preferences, please go to > your user page. > > http://www.newsforge.com/my/messages > > You can log in and change your preferences from > there.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
