The big picture [LWN.net]

The big picture

Posted Apr 18, 2006 20:45 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
In reply to: Why the ads? by hppnq
Parent article: Open Source Parking

[Thanks for explaining ``hppnq''. I've always been curious, but figured it had something to do with Hewlett-Packard. :-)]

Mr. Perens has covered the territory, but I'm hoping a different perspective may satisfy your concerns. I've collected quotations from your all your comments, for simplicity in responding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Jon: It would be nice to have the <hr> tag.)

Some explanation of the financial details and the organisation that's going to be funded seems in order.

I see no need for a business plan, which would take more effort than simply trying out the idea. If any profit shows up, Mr. Perens's career is sufficient evidence that it'll be used appropriately. In the past, when action was needed, and he was able to finance it himself, he turned down money to do it. (Joining a standards committee to ensure Free Software was represented. Unfortunately, I can't find the pointer at the moment.)

I am not sure whether throwing money at politicians is the way to go

In this country there are only two ways of influencing politicians. One is vocal protest by tens (preferably hundreds or more) of thousands of citizens. (Witness the action on the immigration law changes.) While there may be multiple thousands who care about software patents, they're almost exclusively programmers, and are emphatically not a politically vocal lot.

The other way is money, both to contribute to campaigns and for advertising. Barring enlightenment of the citizenry, that's what we need to do.

I am not sure [...] whether a parkingsite is the appropriate way of raising funds.

Any way of raising funds is appropriate. (Well, maybe barring bank robbery...but don't tempt me.)

a kind of organisation that [...] sounds like it could be somewhat responsible for the IP mess in the first place.

A ``kind of organization'' isn't responsible. Perhaps a specific instance, but that's not germane to this PAC.

Microsoft buys statistics like you and I do the groceries.

Too true. But publicity is vital to getting an issue addressed. (See my comments about buying iPods for U.S. Senators.)

But I'm afraid of losing the right to program.
I am still having trouble linking Microsoft buying Netcraft statistics to sentiments like this. It sounds like politics to me.

As Mr. Perens points out, it is politics, and the only way to deal with politics is by politics. Every little bit of PR Microsoft can get is that much more leverage for them. Improving Netcraft's statistics factors into the patent fight. (MS lobbyist: ``But Free Software is marginal, see how they're losing in the marketplace.'' [Shows graph] ``They're beside the point; patents are necessary for fair competition.'')

It's the butterfly effect, and they'll collect all the butterflies they can.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's the situation. Questions about asking the Apache Foundation, or worrying whether the parking site will fund Mr. Perens's vacation in Rio are truly beside the point.

Best wishes,
Max Hyre

Disclaimer: I've been listening to Mr. Perens since he was DPL (or whatever it was called before the constitution), and have immense respect for his aims and abilities. Free Software owes him a bunch.

(Log in to post comments)

The big picture

Posted Apr 19, 2006 22:29 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Max. Let me try to summarize the situation as I see it.

Microsoft has made a perfectly legitimate deal with GoDaddy, one of the effects of which is that it shifts Netcraft statistics to their advantage. Because Netcraft statistics do not reveal idle domains, these statistics are very probably useless to anyone who is not a complete lunatic, but Microsoft will surely use them anyway to do their business.

The problem of software patents is a very difficult one. It involves having to convince a whole lot of people that they are wrong, or that they should care about something that means nothing to them. Plenty of organisations contribute to this effort, in their own way, maybe for their own reasons. It is a difficult playing field, and the ways in which players can be influenced are numerous. It is also intercontinental, I might add, by the way.

Bruce (Mr Perens to some ;-) has found a way to fight the first problem: why not convince domain owners to park idle domains on a non-Microsoft platform? Say: lighttpd. Hang on, we're going to end up in "Other". But we do want to make the technically correct choice: we'll fake the server to look like Apache. After all, this is a crucial part of the plan. We are not just doing the Apache Foundation a favour, we are taking on the giant, we have to protect our status as the most popular webserver.

(We are not going to tell the Apache people about this, obviously. Those hackers are too busy cranking out mod_lighttpd anyway. Especially Open Source leaders can afford to pull off an innocent prank like this. And it's not like the world really *cares* about Apache, it's software, dude. Now, please let me proceed before I lose my RIGHT TO PROGRAM, dammit.)

Wait a minute -- idle domains, software patents, ads, we could be on to something. We'll try to fund a PAC, in order to finally solve the problem of software patents in a way that has been discussed and tried before quite unsuccessfully. The thing to do now is to stay cool and *not* make any plans, let's concentrate on the money and the software patents. Don't forget the patents. We'll see what happens.

To avoid the possibility that anyone ever brings up difficult questions about business plans, and whether we are going to consider spending the money on a holiday in Rio, we'll be absolutely open about the money by revealing the average costs of internet access. Which, given our business plan -- sorry, inspiration, is a substantial percentage of the total turnover so that satisfies any requests about what happens to the rest of it. This is after all the least interesting bit of the whole deal, it's not like a PAC gives us any clear and ready strategy for funds. Problem solved.

Oh, the software patents, yes. Wait! And see!

<hr>

Yes, this is highly cynical (and Max, nothing personal against you, or Bruce for that matter -- it's strictly business). I'll wait to hear Microsoft's take on it, see what they make of it. Trust me: I am converted, but this time I can imagine how some of their facts might just seem to be, in fact... quite true.

I thought the original idea was to thwart Microsoft.

(Let me be absolutely clear on one point. I really don't care what happens to the money if the PAC doesn't make it and I certainly don't suspect Bruce of any bad intentions. I do find odd points in his logic, but I am fully prepared to accept the fact that I am mistaken. Of course I think it would help if I had a bit more to go on than "wait", "I'm not a bad guy" and some easily made and often repeated statements, but you are free to consider this to be a shortcoming on my part.)