On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 06:48:28 -0400, Richard Stallman rms@gnu.org wrote:

Re the request by Microsoft to speak at the Hyderabad usergroup on DotNet,

Such discussion focuses on the practical characteristics of the software, and therefore makes the implicit assertion that, "There is no ethical issue with this software, therefore the interesting things about it are its technical capabilities and merits/demerits." We need to reject that assumption, and the best way is not to offer them a platform at all.

I am not sure that is the "best" way. It is certainly one way -- and, unfortunately, also one that could easily be labelled bigoted or even fascist. Another way would be to engage the "enemy" in debate on the ethical issues involved -- even, if necessary, on their own terms. Winning an intellectual debate on a platform shared by believers and non-believers alike would be a far greater morale booster to lovers of freedom than continuing to preach to the converted.

Let's try! As you yourself have pointed out, "I have done most of my work while anxious about whether I could do the job, and unsure that it would be enough to achieve the goal if I did."

A MSA who was pestering me for a DotNET session at GLUG-Madurai argued that DotNET being an Open Standard, I should not object him promoting it in the GLUG.

When he said this, he was taking advantage of a broader misunderstanding. The idea of GNU/Linux is to be free software; "open standard", even if that is true, is not good enough if the software itself is non-free.

So it looks like we need to educate all GLUGs (and LUGs, if they will listen) to recognize and teac that people should not promote non-free software--regardless of the details.

By the way, Microsoft is deceiving people when they say this is an "open standard", since in the US they are trying to patent some aspects of it. It could be useful to bring that up and expose it.

The lesson that I learn from these people is to outrightly reject their requests. They are not worth the trouble.

We should always refuse to give developers of non-free software a platform to speak. However, saying that this is "not worth the trouble" is misleading, because it is implies there is some potential good to be achieved--if only it were easier to do.

What they are doing is bad, pure and simple. There is no good in it.

M$ through its Micro$oft Student Ambassadors is doing a large scale mobilisation in colleges amongst the student community. They wrap their stuff under labels such as "M$s Open Source venture", "Open Technology", etc.. They are forming student groups in colleges.

From what you are saying, it sounds like they are starting phony "open

source" groups. Can you find any specific statements that you can quote? We could embarrass them badly by documenting this, but we need specific quotes, specific proof.

If you could go to a meeting where they try to recruit new people, and make a recording so that you can quote them exactly, that would be useful too.

Once we have solid proof, we could use various methods to organize against them.

1. Make handouts denouncing them as a fraud. Whenever they have an event, a few of you can stand near the door and hand out copies to whoever is attending. In effect, stage a quiet and simple protest against each of their meetings, accusing them of lying.

2. Recruit a couple of people to pretend to be interested in joining, go to the meeting, and speak up within it to identify the lies.

3. Write articles for student newspapers about the deception.

4. Treat the MSA program and its representatives as liars. Don't treat them as respectable or legitimate.

5. Call on the university to close the program down for lying. Even if this campaign does not succeed, it will generate public awareness that will be useful in all ways. So renew the campaign each year!

Joe Steeve wrote:

DotNET)., and soon realized the folly. Arguments on many GLUG/LUG mailing lists on the same subject has always been on the topic "DotNET being a open standard., why forbid it".

I would like to add some information about dotNet here, which I feel should explain the background before people start hardening their views about dotNet without understanding the real issues here.

About C# ------------ C# is an open standard - It is an ECMA and ISO specification, more standardized than even Java. So there is no problem in talking about C#, in my opinion.

About dotNet --------------- *However*, it is in the implementation where the problem lies. dotNet comprises of the CLR(similar to Java JVM). Mono project provides a Free cross-platform runtime engine unlike the Microsoft implementation which is "free" (as in a "free" download licenced under a typical M$ EULA), runs only on Windows, and probably has several patents on the implementation just like the Sun Java VM.

Another problem is the libraries. A typical dotNet package has a C# compiler(compilers for other languages are optional, e.g mono ships with a VB# compiler too), a core library assembly(like Java class libraries), an XML library(Mono ships with an MIT licenced library), a GUI library(Mono comes with a cross platform Gtk port called Gtk#, Windows forms - mono packages one which works with Wine), a Web app library(Mono comes with XSP which is free, and ASP.Net which works with mod_mono).

My point is that if Java has gained acceptance, dotNet can also get *qualified* acceptance. Mono deliberately packages two separate app stack - a Mono specific one (Gtk#, XSP, etc) and a Microsoft one (ASP.Net, Windows Forms), primarily because even if the latter someday comes under threat, the core dotNet and mono-specific implementation (class libraries, C#, Gtk#, Gecko#, etc.) will always remain free.

The point of contention which has been between the Mono project and the FSF was probably about the windows compatibility stack. Miguel wanted the windows compatibility stack to provide a migration path to Linux, while FSF folks didnt want any possibly patent encumbered or proprietary part to be developed and called Free.

The bottomline is that, *in my opinion*, there should not be any problem in talking about C#, dotNet, Mono with regards to FSF sponsored events, as long as the discussion/talks/workshops stick to: 1. Mono 2. standard class libraries 3. Mono specific libraries like Gtk#, Gecko#, etc. 4. XML class library from xml-rpc.net (MIT licence)

What does NOT qualify: 1. ASP.Net implementation - mono or whatever 2. Windows forms - mono or whatever 3. Any other proprietary/closed libraries - microsoft/mono whatever. 4. VB#

- Sandip

Mahesh T. Pai wrote:

I am not very sure what exactly transpired between FSF and Miguel, but here are few useful links.

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00100.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00089.html

Thanks a lot for the links Mahesh. I spent quite a while on all the threads of the conversation. Thanks again for the lead. My comments below.

``So I would be interested in knowing what you have in mind as a way to improve the connection, *other* than the `GNU/Linux' vs `Linux' debate, which myself and most others in the current board are tired of.

I believe you are trying to damn Miguel using the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate.

<light-hearted-banter> I have seen too many lawyer dramas on TV :), so this gives me a feeling similar to lawyer tactics of damning a persons character before letting the real issues come out in the court - thereby prejudicing the jury. ;) </light-hearted-banter>

If this is the single argument against Miguel/Mono, you dont need to read the rest of my mail here. I am not trying to trivialize this issue here, I just feel this (much dwelled) debate be better left on some other thread. I have pretty strong (although unconventional) views regarding this which I will post sometime later when this debate is in focus.

Anyway, these links you posted were about a debate which flared up when Gnome website software map included a non-free software called ggobi. RMS sent a mail explaining why he felt it was not appropriate (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-June/msg00008.html), which I personally totally agree with. BTW, interestingly, in this mail he admits having an understanding with Miguel of having GNOME libraries licenced not under GPL, but under LGPL for some of the same reasons as libc. In one of the links I will refer to below, Miguel has been accused (by who else, but Register?) of having done this singlehandedly.

The debate somehow ended inconclusively after this great summary of the real issue by Havoc (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00102.html).

Some great mails by RMS on this debate: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00061.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-November/msg00077.html

In particular I loved this excerpt:

" If some day GNOME, GCC, GNU Emacs, and all of GNU are obsolete and forgotten, but computer users generally are free to share and change the software they use, these programs will have done their job well. If, on the other hand, GNOME and the rest of the GNU system are widely used in combination with proprietary software, they will have succeeded only superficially, and a big task will remain ahead of us. "

However, the purpose of our thread here was not Gnome, or Miguel's personal views of Linux vs. GNU/Linux, etc. This was about FSF's attitude towards dotNet.

http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/04/03/2344211.shtml

This doesnt have much content for the debate.

Let's look at RMS's historical views on dotNet. A sensationalistic article by (who else?) Register (again!) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/01/gnome_to_be_based/ , I believe misled RMS to cause him to say http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/05/explain_yourself_miguel_demands_rms/

Miguel later clarified at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-hackers/2002-February/msg00031.html that the Register article twisted his personal ideas as some sort of Gnome project plan.

In Miguel's own words - "The headline does not reflect any statements I made on the interview (if you read the interview you will notice this). [...] I am not the GNOME foundation or control GNOME like Linus controls his kernel, I am just its founder and a contributor. [...] So effectively I have no "maintainer" control."

However, this previous link is the best peek into Miguel's plans about Mono. That, and one of his early mails on the subject - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/09/why_it_pays_to_embrace/.

Excerpt: "I'm not interested in ostracising a technology because a company is ugly," he told us today. "I'm interested in finding the best technology and implementing it so developers can write nice applications."

An important point raised by Miguel to be read by those who would be jumping about implementations of proprietary API's or libraries or software.

"GNU is a free re-implementations of Unix. Linux is a re-implementation of the Unix kernel. Before the advent of Linux and the Berkeley Unix, Unix was a proprietary technology, built by ATT (which back in the day, was a monopoly).

Still, developers took what was good from Unix, and reimplemented a free version of it. Down to the Unix programming language: C (which was also invented at ATT). Even C++ was invented at ATT.

Think of Mono as following the same process: we are bringing the best technology out there to our beloved free software platform. And at the same time it serves to be a magnificent upgrade on the development platform."

He has a point - isnt the flagship Free contributions to the world - libc, gcc/g++, Linux (the kernel), bison, etc. all Free reimplementations of proprietary developments? Why is AT&T, etc. suitable companies whose technologies can be reimplemented, but Microsoft isnt *by default*? AT&T in those days was probably as bad as M$ today (honestly, I wouldnt know much about this though).

Or is there an unwritten FSF rule now to opposed any technology innovation coming out of basically proprietary companies? By that logic, Java should have been ostracised too. But we do have (http://directory.fsf.org/search/fsd-search.py?q=java) today, dont we?

Yes, I know Microsoft has had a really bad reputation behind them, and it is highly unlikely that they can ever get better other than with a federal axe. But if we are careful enough to watch where we are treading in the dotNet swamp, cant we remain dry?

I would really like to know RMS's view on this. :) Thanks and sorry for the long mail.

- Sandip

Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:

Yes, I know Microsoft has had a really bad reputation behind them, and it is highly unlikely that they can ever get better other than with a federal axe. But if we are careful enough to watch where we are treading in the dotNet swamp, cant we remain dry?

I would like to add some information about dotNet here, which I feel should explain the background before people start hardening their views about dotNet without understanding the real issues here.

The non-free software companies have serious differences with our philosophy, and we will never get far with their lip service. These look like a series of serious attempts to use up *our* very valuable and limited resources to promote non-free software indirectly. It would be better to settle these issues now, and the only real way to get together honestly is when their agreement with our basic philosophy of software freedom becomes visible. What follows below, is only an elaboration of "Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue"[1]

The bottomline is that, *in my opinion*, there should not be any problem in talking about C#, dotNet, Mono with regards to FSF sponsored events, as long as the discussion/talks/workshops stick to:

1. Mono
2. standard class libraries
3. Mono specific libraries like Gtk#, Gecko#, etc.
4. XML class library from xml-rpc.net (MIT licence)

What does NOT qualify:

1. ASP.Net implementation - mono or whatever
2. Windows forms - mono or whatever
3. Any other proprietary/closed libraries - microsoft/mono whatever.
4. VB#

Most unfortunately, it is very difficult to draw lines like you have drawn when an event is in progress or in mailing lists. A user may raise genuine questions about DotNet, and the bonafide answers would lie under what you list as "what does NOT qualify", and we will know about it only after the discussion is completed. Either we allow a full discussion or not allow it at all: that alone is workable.

The issue needs to be carefully stated, and understood to avoid any confusion. We will go into DotNet a little later. Now, Microsoft has released Windows Services For Unix 3.5, along with many GNU applications under the GPL. Many of these applications are "optimised" to work with SFU 3.5 The source code for many GLPed applications is available at http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse.htm Could we therefore invite Microsoft to speak on these GNU Project tools, that have been "optimised" for SFU 3.5? We should not, simply because all these are specially meant for non-free systems, and they being "open standard" or GPLed does not matter at all. It is simply not relevant for us. How would you check out if the "optimised" tools work well? By trying it on a non-free Windows system. Any talk on the tools in the warehouse, would sooner or latter lead to full fledged discussions about non-free software, that is licensed in the most restrictive manner. Such discussions don't, won't and can't help us. DotNet is no different.

Writing applications that provide for interoperability is something that is forced on us. Ideally, the authors themselves may take care to see that the tools they develop, and any output from it can be shared across different operating systems. Non-free software companies especially try to make interoperability as difficult as possible, which is especially unfair and unethical. The lack of source code and information about architecture, makes interoperability very difficult. A suitable law that clearly compels non-free software to disclose source code along with binaries is required. Monopolies are bad, and any device that helps monopolistion should be handled with suitable legislation. [Mono? sounds familiar??]

The problem with Microsoft like non-free companies, is their very serious disagreement with free software philosophy.

<quote> One reason we wanted to sell to computer companies rather than consumers was software piracy. We wanted to get paid for our work, and when companies bundled our software with their computers, they included our royalty in the price.... I wrote a widely disseminated "Open Letter to Hobbyists" asking the early users of personal computers to stop stealing our software so that we could make money that would let us build more software. "Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software", I wrote. But my argument didn't convince many hobbyists to pay for our work. They seemed to like it, and they used it, but they seemed to prefer to "borrow" it from each other." </quote>

That is Bill Gates, in "The Road Ahead" p.46. Their EULAs implement that basic philosophy with as many restrictions as possible, as one of their predominant goals is making more money. (The orginal reason was that more money would let them build more software, but it is for the reader to judge how far it has turned true :) We believe in sharing and co-operation but they simply don't agree there. Now, their basic philosophy has not changed, and their agents are more hard on those views.

The non-free companies operate through their agents, including MSAs and others. MSAs can easily join mailing lists that discuss free software, as entry is free for all. Most of the MSA postings qualify as spam but many user group mailing lists are liberal and as MSAs are students none may take this seriously and complain.

ILUGC <www.chennailug.org> promotes Free Software, here in Chennai, through Install Festivals, Demo Days, regular monthly meets, active mailing list, with support from serveral IITians and others who passionately enjoy using free software. ILUGC provides very valuable support to free software users. All that must be bad news for non-free software loving MSAs, and I could share my little experience with the issues involved here.

Some may be wondering what the MSAs post to mailing lists that discuss free software! Well, one friend at ilugc has archived the postings of that MSA!! >> http://www.antrix.net/stuff/sriram.mbox.gz

A few samples: http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009257.html http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009228.html http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009230.html http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009326.html

[honestly calls himself an Evil Microsoft Spy ! Please avoid wasting time on this, unless you are a sysadmin: there are many, many long posts and threads! ]

It takes time and effort to write replies, and sometimes I do that: http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2004-April/009307.html

Well the archives are peppered with MSA postings, usually thick around the time ILUGC plans Install Fests and Gnu/Linux Demo Day meets at various schools and colleges in Chennai. Since many at ILUGC give a good amount of importance for free software philosophy, MSA is normally silenced. Recently, the MSA rants got too irksome for me, that I excused myself from the mailing list for some time.

The MSAs pose the danger of both wasting time and promoting non-free software on the mailing lists, and since they are paid for this dirty work, they brush aside any rebukes and happily continue with the rants. If MSAs start posting to FSF India mailing lists, may be, firm action could follow against their principal.

If they would like to work with us, join us whole heartedly, then it should start with an affirmation and acceptance of our philosophy. It may call for more advocacy and probably viable migration programs for companies may help them to genuinely join hands with us in developing software. HTH.

-Ramanraj

[1] RMS, quoted from "Selling Free Software" http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The essence is that, we should just ignore them when they request for a session. We should not even bother giving them a chance (as said by one other member on the list) to talk.

That is correct--but it is crucial to teach people to understand WHY they don't deserve a chance. What is Microsoft trying to do? They are trying to subjugate people, keep them divided and helpless. That activity does not deserve a "fair chance", because it is unethical.