Spark's Pensieve - Liars and Frauds amongst us

Monday, November 01, 2004

So quiet frankly, I

1) am a fraud

2) am trying to deceive people

3) am not ‘worth the trouble’

4) - to say that I am not ‘worth the trouble’ is misleading, because it implies that there is some potential good to be achieved otherwise

5) am upto doing bad things, pure and simple

6) am starting phony open source groups

7) should have evidence collected against me

8) – you should be organized against me

9) should be denounced as fraud

10) should have protests staged against each of my meetings

11) should have articles written about my deceptions

12) should be treated as a liar

13) should not be treated as respected or legitimate

14) should have universities close down programs because I am a liar

15) should have this campaign against me renewed each year

If I missed something in the above set, I apologize.

You can read it all and more here -

http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2004-October/002484.html

The reason this applies to me is because I often talk to my juniors at college and to students as well as professional developers about .Net. I do talk about it as an open platform and I believe that they should adopt it, learn from it, use it and develop on it. (A few days back I had come across this)

Sriram, now you know why (like Jack Nicholson) says ‘we can’t all get along’. I have tried and fell flat on my face, several times.

Noufal, now you know why I don’t think that MIT’s AI labs success has nothing to do with the GPL and think that the FSF is a political agitation/movement more than anything about technology or software. Unfortunately their sphere of influence is around technology.

If the things I do warrant that the above apply to me, then I am not ashamed of any of them.

Kids, if any of you in college are reading this, then here is a piece of mindspace – you are in college/university to be learning, not to be religious or have political ideals. Learn the goods and bads of every system – but more fundamentally try to learn about as much as you can about the art of computer science – that is so rare and there seem to be so many fewer people who know about it.

Now, here are some basics, you just need to be able to read and think to understand these. If you know how to use a web search engine, then you could have

Standards

The open/free standard - http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/ecma/

I intentionally use the words above, because there is No definition of the English language use of the above words that is violated in the way they are used above. If word x means y in a certain political ideal, in my personal sense of ethics, followers of y cannot call those who understand x as x to be non-conformant. Your mileage on that may vary.

The standards document – the Common Language Infrastructure – which is to say the way the runtime should work.

Its architecture.

Its file formats

Its API

Its opcode / IL / bytecode – whatever you call it

The C# language.

The above are also ISO standards under ISO/IEC 23270 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271 (CLI) and ISO/IEC 23272 (CLI TR).

Microsoft does not own or run ECMA or ISO.

Patents

About the patents, here is a mail by Miguel of the Mono project.

http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/msg05784.html

And look at this

http://samgentile.com/blog/archive/2003/02/19/2647.aspx

Implementations

Microsoft offered the SSCLI source code

http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/sscli/

Works for BSD, Mac and Windows

The BSD bit patched for Linux is here - http://www.macadamian.com/products/sscli/download.html

These are governed by a non-viral not-for-commercial-use license

http://msdn.microsoft.com/MSDN-FILES/027/002/097/ShSourceCLILicense.htm (print it out, it fits on a page)

Mono

http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html

http://www.mono-project.com/about/faq.html read the faq, before you ‘decipher’

Maybe I am a fraud who is lying about all of the above. Do you love the .Net technology; do you talk to others about it? Do you write commercial/proprietary software? Maybe you are a liar-fraud too.

Btw DO NOT hold this in perspective of my employer or any previous employer or any other context – these are purely my OWN OPINIONS done on my own steam and is not nor ever was, part of any job description of mine. Maybe I am writing this hastily, if I am wrong, I will correct myself. Personally, I have an objection to being called unethical.

Ethos | Mish Mash | Zeitgeist

Monday, November 01, 2004 2:56:05 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [28] | Related posts:
Oompa-Loompas are running the Chocolate Factory
Penguins and Logical Equivalence
Uncouth: Achuthanandan
A friend is interviewing at MS...
Guaranteeing Salvation Since 1620
G. H. Hardy

Tuesday, November 02, 2004 2:46:34 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Awesome Roshan. Just awesome

Sriram

Tuesday, November 02, 2004 5:42:49 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/06/01/1658258.shtml

The Chicago Times article is pay only now, unfortunately. Same story in http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020381,2092085,00.htm if you are looking.

:-/

aadis

Tuesday, November 02, 2004 6:25:47 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I didn't mean that it had anything to do with the GPL. The GPL came much later. The AI labs flourished because of the availability of "free" code. No unnecessary reinvention of the wheel and stuff like that. The GPL is an attempt to recreate that atmosphere. Bill Gates wouldn't agree and would definitely call it un "free" but then again, he was the one that complained when people took his code and used it without "permission". That too in a hacker community. So, I don't really have much respect for his ideas on the matter anyway.

And I do agree with you that the whole GNU project is politically motivated. I just think that that's the right way to go.

In the context of allowing a person to give a speech on .NET at a GLUG meet, I wouldn't be as vehement as RMS in opposing it since there are free implementations of the compiler which have been used for some nice apps. But his general distrust and dislike of proprietary software, I almost wholly agree with. His premise is that technical merit is not as important as other issues that are relevant to software.

As for your rant about allegations being levelled at you, I don't think this whole discussion needs to be taken personally. I also don't think it's going to lead anywhere since the foundations on which we're building our arguments are *opinions* on what is more important and relevant rather than technical facts and things which have just one true answer.

Noufal Ibrahim

Tuesday, November 02, 2004 9:16:49 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Quote:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,39020381,2092085,00.htm
< "This shared-source thing has nothing to do with building community outside of Microsoft," Red Hat chief technology officer Michael Tiemann said in a speech immediately after Mundie's. "It is not so much a licence, I think, as it is a treaty crafted by executives trying to buy time while they quiet the internal rebellion that is Microsoft's own civil war."

Rubbish, Mundie responded in a debate. "I can tell you quite specifically there's no civil war at the management level and no observable civil war among the rank and file," he said. >

If I count, let me back that - Rubbish.

Look dude, I personally am ok with open source - look at most of my own work, its more open than most of what open source allows you(http://www.thinkingms.com/pensieve/homepage/work/trashbin/trashbin.htm). I am all for sharing and development. But I also believe that there is a specific importance of the commercial software world which attempts to add a certain degree of sustainability, which is important.

Let me quote Chris Pratley(Group Program Manager, Office Authoring Services), here -
"To the extent that open source is about people working together, contributing their time and effort to build something, I think its great. That's what I do all day too after all."
http://weblogs.asp.net/chris_pratley/archive/2004/05/01/124586.aspx

Let me quote Rory - "Pro Choice, Anti Abortion"
http://neopoleon.com/blog/posts/4343.aspx

That said, if you noticed, the above article wasnt about the GPL: its about the socio-political environment it forms that allows this sort of behaviour. Any movement, any movement at all, has its basis in what some consider the superiority of an idea (like the nazi belief of the superiority of the aryan race) - the great differentaitor the quality is the environment that it builds up and the actions that it condones. As much as I personally believe in freedom of information and freedom of individual choice, I cannot see how closed minded idealism or the sort of extreme inteloernace for everything else helps. I can much easier see how it hurts, like on this occassion it hurts me.

Taking it personally? Only as much as you would, had a community you cared for and are a part of, been called liars and frauds...

Again, if you notice the objection here is specific and not a generic protest against open source and GPL and PD and every freely shared piece of code since the late 60s. Without these dilutions, this is a specific and strong objection, and I believe I am not alone.

{I feel bad about the nazi comparison above, even if I didnt direct it at anyone or any movement - just to put it in perspective, that is so like the way New York has those guilty of murder, perjury and commercial/proprietary software - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/my_doom.html}

Roshan

Tuesday, November 02, 2004 4:12:12 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

/me invokes Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) and gets out :D

aadis

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:05:26 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

/bows down to grace/

Roshan

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:12:47 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

In sense, that is a good usage to invalidate the above arguement it - a good usage of rhetoric. I see that I have much to learn in this context. < me>bows down to grace, again</ me>

Roshan

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:53:52 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I wonder how he came up with that law. I've seen it happen /so/ many times on /. :)

Noufal Ibrahim

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 5:11:29 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Exactly. Excellent find, aadis :)

Sajith

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:40:07 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Seriously, I can't understand the whole deal.

It's like this:
He thinks you (commercial software wallahs) are harming society. You think he (free software wallhs) is harming computer industry/society. He calls you names (all of the above,...). You call him names (cancer, anti IP, un-american, communist,...).

What is the problem? For God's sake don't get hurt and all, you need thicker skin to survive!

Society is large enough to have this honest difference in opinion. He really thinks software should be free, and ensures it remains free by using GPL. Granted, he's an Idealist*.

He'll keep on trying to run you out of business, using any legal means possible (GPL is _very_ strong copyright). You will keep on trying to make profits and dodge him.

Now can we get on with our lives and work?

[* do not discount idealism out of hand. You and me would not be here if not for a lot of idealist people, who did what they believed in]

aadis

Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:51:40 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

"That said, if you noticed, the above article wasnt about the GPL: its about the socio-political environment it forms that allows this sort of behaviour. Any movement, any movement at all, has its basis in what some consider the superiority of an idea ... - the great differentaitor the quality is the environment that it builds up and the actions that it condones."

I agree with a lot of the points you've made, but this one strikes me as disingenuous. Any ideology has its zealots and they usually are a little embarrasing to the "moderate" mainstream. An exmaple on the other side of the fence might well be someone like Jack Valenti:

“Now, these machines [VCRs] are advertised for one purpose in life. Their only single mission, their primary mission is to copy coyrighted material that belongs to other people.”

“I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Back in 1982, that could have been taken as a moral assault on the developers of consumer videotape equipment and the people who bought them.

More directly in Microsoft's history is early Bill Gates:

"As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?"

And later Steve Ballmer:

"the most common format of music on the iPod is'stolen'."

Even if it was a joke, it was in bad taste (and most jokes have their origin in the truth).

Another example is Michael Eisner's testimony during a hearing on the SSSCA that the only reason Dell wouldn't want to include strict copy protection hardware in their products was so that they could sell to thieves.

If all you're concerned about is that Stallman said something potentially offensive and overly general, there are plenty of examples of that on both sides of the debate.

mschaef

Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:10:27 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Aaah (you know that Godwin law is bang on the dot - "Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.")

About BillG's 'Open Letter to Hobbyists' - I do not understand why this is being quoted so often. When they released Basic that time it was meant to be 'for sale' and not /gratis/. Which is exactly what he said in the letter. I do not understand the novelty or even the assumed relationship to every other arguement about anything related to anything about free software or its induced zeitgeist. These are Different things.

Everything else you have quoted, does not compare with RMS's 'argumentum ad hominem'. Like I said, personally, I have an objection to being called unethical. I DO think that the current course of 'free' development is damaging to the sustainable progress of IP development and innovation, and that it turn 'causes actual material harm to society' (to quote RMS verbatim). I also feel that the entire concept of community sustained software, where individual software developers are bound by law/license to give up personal property rights on software, is more socialistic/communist in nature than any other populist methodology.

"You call him names (cancer, anti IP, un-american, communist,...). "
I do not know about 'un american' or 'cancer' - I have not used those names, though I believe the GPL is a viral license (as in 'like a virus'; as in 'spreading from code base to code base when you bring them in contact').

So, that said, there is a problem. The problem is that I am not willing to lie down and be treated as your friendly local Animal Farm Snowball when he says -
"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! "

The problem essentially boils down to this - I strongly believe that working on what I am is morally right and talking about the technology is ethical. That by working on this I am NOT causing 'actual material harm to the society'. And here there are individuals who try, as I see, to rouse who fellow enthusiasts and friends to see me as unethical or like in this case as a liar-fraud, and that (without any ones sanctions) is my problem.
It turns out, like he once said about NDAs, that his 'freedom' does have victims.

Roshan

Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:35:37 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

"About BillG's 'Open Letter to Hobbyists' - I do not understand why this is being quoted so often."

Because it's a good summary of the beliefs that led to Microsoft.

"Which is exactly what he said in the letter."

Along with the statement that "most of you steal software". I don't know if that was true or not, but I'd have found it patently offensive (since I tend to actually buy my closed source software).

"Everything else you have quoted, does not compare with RMS's 'argumentum ad hominem'. Like I said, personally, I have an objection to being called unethical."

RMS attacked the morality of whole classes of IP consumers, and so did those that I quoted (iPod users and software hobbyists as thieves). It might not apply to you, but it's really the same kind of statement.

"where individual software developers are bound by law/license to give up personal property rights on software, "

The only way the GPL requires someone to give away their personal property rights is if they agree to the GPL by writing code under the GPL or contributing to a GPL'd work. Under Linux, individual contributors can even retain copyright on the work they submit. If you don't want to give away the rights to your code you have a bunch of choices: pick a different license, don't sign over your copyright, don't contribute your code to a project with disagreeable license terms. Just like the choice to buy Microsoft software, it is a choice, with a certain cost, to contribute to GPL'd software. If you don't like it, don't make the choice.

With respect to limitations of choice, the only difference in choice that I see is that I can't choose to contribute to or alter closed source software. I'm dependant on the vendor for fixes, for software support, for file format support, for hardware support, and for future evolution of the software. Just ask anybody who's sunk a bunch of energy into VB6 code: Why is making myself or my business so dependant on something over which I have very limited control better for a market economy? The answer is that it's not, you need more choice than closed software offers...

mschaef

Friday, November 05, 2004 1:51:02 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Hello...
1) The relation between the letter and what led to Microsoft are way outside of what you can judge with the knowledge that you have at your disposal. That said, that letter was written to a certain audience that you - " I don't know if that was true or not, but I'd have found it patently offensive (since I tend to actually buy my closed source software). " - are not part off about the software that Bill shipped at that time.
While after 20+ years that phrase seems like an unfair generalisation, personally I dont care. You really need to get your facts right on how this maps to you.

2) "RMS attacked the morality of whole classes of IP consumers, and " - this is where I differ. RMS in his mail, maybe you it will favour your memory to read it again, did not attack 'a whole class of IP cutomers', but attcked a specific community that I was also part off - and i cannot take it because, which due respect dear Sir, if you baselessly call me a liar in public, you will have to explain your words.

3) "where individual software developers are bound by law/license to give up personal property rights on software,
The only way the GPL requires someone to give away "
Read the context - this was being said about the GPLed 'free' development< period>

Roshan

Friday, November 05, 2004 9:23:59 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

"While after 20+ years that phrase seems like an unfair generalisation, personally I dont care. You really need to get your facts right on how this maps to you."

I think my facts _are_ straight: Ballmers' "joke" (and Microsoft's aggressive efforts towards NGSCB, etc.) leads me to the conclusion that the belief behind Gates' statement that "most of you steal your software" is still very much alive within Microsoft. Given that this view drives Microsoft's decicion making process, and that Microsoft controls 95% of desktop PC's, has agressive lobbying and legal efforts, and is using this power to restrict what I can to with my computers, I think these statements map to me quite directly.

I don't steal software, I don't steal videos or movies, and I don't want my computer restricted to booting a "signed" operating system I have no control over or violating my fair use rights by playing multimedia files through some kind of secure, encrypted media channel. Tell me again how this doesn't map to me.

"Read the context - this was being said about the GPLed 'free' development< period> "

I'll respond to this in the context of the other blog entry, once I read through it.

mschaef

Friday, November 05, 2004 10:11:56 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

That last post (obviously) was made without knowledge of your request to take the discussion elsewhere.

mschaef

Saturday, November 06, 2004 6:50:27 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I did not ask for the dicussion to be taken elsewhere - I have clarified there. Please accept my apologies.

Responding to what you say above, two points -
1) Microsoft as it stands today is a large corporation that relies on market data and surveys for its statements. It does believe that software piracy is a reality, more in certain regions of the world than in others. There is often thirdparty data to support that.
2) If you do actually buy commercial software, thank you - you are contributing to a large system of related processes that underly our society, by doing so. If you feel you you need to lobby against some particulat licensing or software pricing or policy, you should - that is only correct.

If both of the above points in conjunction make you feel that Microsoft or any commercial body is responsible for public slander that has affected you, I feel (1) it is uncalled for (2) I dont see how someone else can help you (3) it does not apply to my original post and maybe out of context here.

Roshan

Monday, November 08, 2004 8:59:09 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

"Please accept my apologies. "

No problem at all.

I'm going to respond out of order so I can better establish where I'm coming from.

"2) If you do actually buy commercial software, thank you"

Of course. It actually goes a lot deeper than that. After graduating college I developed commercial closed source software for seven years. Even now, I have a couple little closed-source (Windows-only, too) shareware applications I'm trying to sell on the side. (For a whole bunch of reasons, I've since changed my 'day job' from pure software development to IT consulting.)

"If you feel you you need to lobby against some particulat licensing or software pricing or policy, you should - that is only correct. "

Well, my position is a little more nuanced than that. I can't claim that either the open source or closed source model is strictly superior to the others. They both have different advantages, and software producers have to make that choice individually. The other side of the issue is that software consumers have to be willing to honor the terms under which software is made available. Thus, closed source commercial software shouldn't be pirated and GPL'd software shouldn't be sold commercially as closed-source.

Longer term, I think it's critically important that these alternative licensing mechanisms be allowed to remain viable, and the market ultimately decide where it wants to go on a case-by-case basis.

"If both of the above points in conjunction make you feel that Microsoft or any commercial body is responsible for public slander that has affected you, I feel (1) it is uncalled for (2) I dont see how someone else can help you (3) it does not apply to my original post and maybe out of context here. "

Okay. That's fair enough, but my point really isn't to establish that I was offended or that you shouldn't be offended; It was to demonstrate that dialogue occasionally ends up in the gutter no matter what side you're on. Thus, I think it's important to look past the "RMS called me a liar" or "Ballmer called me a thief" and find the underlying value in what being said. In this case, I think there's considerable value on both sides.

mschaef

Sunday, November 14, 2004 6:37:03 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Rosh, Thats a good post!

[Kids, if any of you in college are reading this, then here is a piece of mindspace – you are in college/university to be learning, not to be religious or have political ideals. Learn the goods and bads of every system – but more fundamentally try to learn about as much as you can about the art of computer science – that is so rare and there seem to be so many fewer people who know about it. ]

I appreciate and agree with you 100%.

I believe I have been one of those fortunate people who did a non professional degree and still manage to stick to my passion to write code and work in this industry. Over the years this is the lesson I have learnt.

While I was back at school and college (read after hours) I got to study things which quite a few people say is BORING... Compiler Construction theory, OS Concepts, Programming practices, Data structures and algorithms and stuff like that (as you put it the ART of Computer SCIENCE).

Those who have an opportunity and as much enthusiasm to read and understand computer science at school / college should take it seriously and try to work and understand the basic building blocks and play as much as possible to understand these from the prespective of each app/os they can place there hands on.

Dude, do not forget when you get involved in a job you may hardly find time to actualy evaluate and understand the various options you have then other than crib about the limitations of the API or framework or OS you are using then for your development activities.

School gives an adequate opportunity to evaluate the choice you have and update ideas which nurture you for the better in the days to come.

At the end of the day who are you are you a developer or not. If you would like to call yourself a developer then sure you should be thinking in programming terms rather than specific to OS/Languages .... If every programmer on terra firma happens to make himself happy with a language then we should have not seen anything after C (C because that happens to be my personal fav.)! Learn fundamentals as much as you can because that would help you to write what interests you or follow your passion as you go about writing software for your bread and butter some day.

Rosh, I find this missing a lot in the junta which is churned out from colleges these days. Hope you would agree with what I shared here!

Teucer

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:16:38 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

I agree, Teucer, to the spirit of what you are saying here.

Think, Read, Learn. Think.
What matters about people is the quality of their learning.

I am in Cochin these days - low bandwidth fictional dialup connections... you know. So thats why the late reply.

Roshan

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:41:16 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Hello!I found here a plenty of useful information for myself! I will
visit you soon...

repair pst

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:43:19 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

The interesting information located on your page

outlook express problems

Wednesday, October 05, 2005 7:50:21 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Hello. I just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you I enjoyed reading your material

philadelphia roofing contractor

Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:31:44 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

A lot of news could be found here.