Blogging Ottinger (tim)

Part 2 of the Linux Foundation’s interview with Linus Torvalds has some nice sound bites about patents.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is trying to stop a particularly nasty move in the senate. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 includes among its odious bits some legislation that prevents third parties from examining and busting invalid patents. Like the one on clicking a link, or the one on writing loops in code, or any of the millions that have prior art and are obvious. If mad patents cannot be attacked by third-parties, then we as programmers will become increasingly afraid to code as all obvious mechanisms become covered by patents and we will have to pay for defense from mad lawsuits.

As with all legislation, this act has good parts and bad parts. I’m not totally against all that it does, but the harmful bits are ugly.

We need to get some money into the EFF right now.

I saw something Kent said in a mailing list, and wanted to put it here for reference (and because my friends would appreciate it).

When secrets are easy to keep, keeping secrets is a power position. When
secrets are hard to keep (as they increasingly are), keeping secrets becomes
a position of weakness–you never know when someone is going to reveal what
you have been hiding. When secrets have a short half-life, transparency
becomes the power position […]

This is something that has a strong resonance with things I have learned. I have nothing to add to this.

This came to me in response to a different posting, but I thought I’d put it here.:

So, although I’ve read many of your articles I do have to wonder: what is your stance on Christianity and commercialism?

I believe (though I believe many other interpretations are possible) that the Bible does not - in any way - forbid charging for product. (I know, I know, that the Bible describes our Lord chastising the temple hawkers, but this does NOT mean that capitalism is BAD.)

So I’m genuinely interested in your stance: what’s so bad about paying for Windows?

There is so much to this. Some of it is my Christian stance, some of it is practical or pragmatic, some of it is purely emotional. There is more “me” in this than maybe you will like.

On commercialism:

• There is nothing wrong with a Christian also being a businessperson. He should be a certain kind of business person, but can be successful in a commercial setting. The trick is that he should do business ethically at every turn, and should choose his partners carefully. I would disrespect a “Christian business” that had partners in organized crime, pornography, or other questionable areas. Realize that the success of the business is not an indicator of God’s approval, nor is the failure of the business a sign of wrath. Businesses succeed and fail for lots of silly reasons.
• If you use Windows, you should pay for it. I’m not into “robin hood” advocacy, or the “they deserved it” defense. I am not against paying the price of the things you use, but I do have concerns. Those will follow.
• I have definite feelings about commercialism in the church. Simony is an offense that bothers me a lot, and so is the act of trading on your church membership to make more money. Likewise I despise the whole “revival in a box” thinking that includes the “certified Purpose-Driven” thing. The Church is not a marketplace (hence the moneychangers).
• It bothers me when the church is run as a commercial business, measuring their success not by spiritual but commercial indicators such as attendance, buildings, cash, and pastoral salaries. These are not how Christ did things, and while they are not wrong neither are they the indication of God’s favor. A large church that loves and serves the Kingdom is the same as a small church the loves and serves the Kingdom. Selfishness is the problem, not the answer. We aren’t selling something, aren’t trying to beat out the competition, and aren’t trying to be successful in order to win the world’s praise. We have a different mission.

Now as to the whole windows in the church thing, I have a few problems with it.

• Opportunity cost/Stewardship: is it the best use of tithes and offering to buy windows and windows software (including Office and even software development tools) ? Would OpenOffice and Linux or BSD suffice, saving the money for more important needs? Remember that churches exist on whatever money the congregation deems to give, and they always want to see it put to use in helping others and spreading the good news. Microsoft products require more and more hardware and provide less and less performance. The “upgrade treadmill” makes them very successful, but what makes them successful is not what makes us successful. I’m not sure that the yearly cost for for hardware and software upgrades is our best choice.
• Reputation: Is Microsoft the kind of business you want as a partner? Do they have the ethical background? In my view, they do not have the kind of history that we should support. Bill is getting better all the time, but Microsoft seems to me to be a scofflaw and a poor citizen in many ways. I’d feel better if we used something else. Note that in the list of “fruits of the spirit”, we don’t see “commercial success”. While MS success is awesome, it is not in itself a virtue nor does it make the means of success virtuous.
• High Maintenance Agreements: Microsoft licensing has difficult rules and requirements. If a church is to use Microsoft software, then they should abide by all the terms of the agreement (just as they should abide by all the terms of any other contract they enter into). Have you read the agreement? If you run Windows, you really need to be sure all your uses are carefully policed. Other operating systems have very simple terms requiring very little monitoring and freely granting the right to copy and modify the software. You should look at a comparison of the MS EULA and the GPL. You should also be vigilant and read what various astute detractors have said about the little surprises lurking in the EULA.
• Practical issues: Windows doesn’t work very well. It’s well-known that a typical windows PC will slow down to a crawl in 6-9 months after purchase. There are tricks one can use to keep it running well (mostly involving buying more and more software, increasing the cost-per-cpu), but it just “runs down” over time. Some windows experts even recommend wiping out and re-imaging your system every 1-to-2 years. My best windows boxes worked because I eliminated (as much as possible) all IE and Outlook and used only third party (open source) browser and email apps. I messed with the virtual memory settings to get a fixed-size page file. I added commercial anti-virus, firewall, and adware management. I got a third-party disk defrag. I downloaded memory defraggers, uninstallers, registry defraggers and cleaners, and other performance-managing software. I limited the software that could be loaded. If we only ran the browser, email, and some accounting, and we kept up on all the upgrades, and ran the performance tools often enough, and had constant watch on vulnerabilities, we didn’t see much degradation in performance in the course of two years (after which I converted the box to Debian rather than stay on the upgrade treadmill). If you have to shore it up with so much additional software, is it really a good operating system?
• Ease and freedom of installation: Microsoft doesn’t provide anything like the Debian apt repository, where you can pull in tens of thousands of software titles with a simple gui (or command line) front-end, complete with dependency management and automated upgrades for the whole box.
• Freedom to copy: If I copy Windows onto a second computer (even on my kids’ computers or in the childrens ministry area), I am a criminal. If I copy linux or BSD, then I’m legally and ethically entitled to do so. I don’t have to police the EULA, I don’t have to send money to anyone (though I can if I like).

So my basic premise is that if you can in any way choose not to use microsoft, then it makes sense not to use Microsoft for your church. If you do use windows, you should certainly buy or download all the software it takes to control it and you must be sure that you understand your EULA and live in compliance with it, and you simply must ensure that you are legally entitled to all the use you make of it. Use microsoft products most scrupulously and with my blessing, but don’t get sloppy about it and risk a loss in a BSA audit, and don’t leave yourself open to bot nets and the like. Be very, very careful.

Oh, and beware. Recent licenses include a clause that you will not work around any shortcoming in the product. If it doesn’t work, you will simply deal with it. That seems a little crazy to me, but you can make your own decision.

According to DbD, it looks like selling music without DRM works. We knew that when eMusic got so big. They move a lot of independent and long-tail stuff, all non-DRMed.

It bothers me when I see a review of an mp3 player (or worse, an ad) that lists DRM as a feature. I know that the innocent might see DRM and think it means “compatible with iTunes (and the like)” but of course that’s not necessarily so. One DRM isn’t necessarily compatible with another, and of course DRM adds cost to the development of players.

It’s encouraging when people get mad about DRM because it is a bad system for the consumer. Hopefully the vendors will learn that DRM is just a bad idea.

But now it looks like we have further evidence that not having DRM is a good idea, and that’s a move in the right direction. I hope the market chooses wisely.

A friend sent me this bit in email. Yes, I’m outraged. I think that this whole hate speech bill is going to be a big problem. I’m okay with being sensitive to the situations of others, but I think that we’re going far too far now.

The words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” can
be punished as “hate speech” in government workplaces, according to a
lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the
Washington Times. Don Surber says “I have to wonder why I am supporting gay
marriage when one group of gays and one federal circuit court contend that
³marriage² is a profanity that should not be uttered at work.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070610-111445-6957r.htm

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/06/11/marriage-is-hate-speech/

I think that “contrary” or “insensitive” is different from “hate speech”. In this case, it seems like normal speech about ones personal situation is considered hate speech if other people choose to live differently? To me, I think that speech that encourages mistreatment or violence is hate speech, and I wish that were the standard.

People can not like me because I’m a white person, because I’m a male, because I’m a consultant, because I’m a computer geek, because I’m of European descent (Swiss/German/Austrian/Native American), because I come from Indiana, because I’m bald on top, or because I’m a Christian. They can even express that they don’t like those things in me. As long as they don’t encourage my mistreatment or violence against me and my family, I don’t think it’s hate speech.

I worry about the erosion of free speech, and I worry about the slippery slope here. When will disagreement with the government be considered hate speech? What if my proclamation of my personal history, above, becomes hate speech? What if your holy scriptures are considered hate speech? I don’t want to see people be rude, but I don’t want to see someone in lock-up because they mentioned that they love their wife and kids, either.

Since you can now own numbers, you had better get on over to Freedom To Tinker’s web page for your own code. Ah, what could not be done with copyright or patent, the entertainment industry can do with the DMCA. You can now own math. Or at least a small part of it.

This is a lovely letter detailing Dr. Knuth’s opinion on software patents. Indeed, he voices the fears that all of us feel. Patenting software or any other algorithm is disconcerting to say the least. What if I find that my code accidentally infringes on patents of IBM and Microsoft? What will that mean to me as a professional software consultant? A professional programmer? A hobbyist? Will it mean that we will all have to fund expensive patent searches in order to release our software as open-source? What about our blogs? What are we allowed to express in code and in text?

I sound alarmist, I know. But it’s only because I’m alarmed.

Which countries don’t have software patents?

Okay, after a game of “loves me, loves me not” it looks like this time Dell promises linux and recognizes the customer demand for linux-compatible hardware in their desktops and laptops.

This is a small victory for the linux community, but I am hoping it will be a big victory for Dell as they profit from actually listening to their customer base. If they actually do this, consider a Dell linux box. With it, you should also consider some DRM-free EMI music.

Postscript:

There is a very interesting site out called Before the Music Dies. I may have to order the DVD. They seem to be showing how pop divas are manufactured, and how the business works. I think it’s worth a few minutes of your time, especially if you really love music and are frustrated by the oh-so-corporate pop pablum that is pop music.

I have ordered the DVD from Amazon. I will have a review of it later on. Interesting stuff.