Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software [LWN.net]

On his blog, Alex Hudson looks at a FUD-filled brochure from SirsiDynix, which is a company that sells software for libraries. In addition to saying nice things about LWN, Hudson points out some of the "highlights" in this brochure that is meant to warn libraries away from free software. The brochure first showed up at WikiLeaks. "As well as the relatively malicious falsehoods being perpetrated against those specific library projects, there are also vague allegations about open source in general – from accusations of Red Hat being 'proprietary' to the highly entertaining argument that the US Department of Defense 'restrict the use of open source software for fear that it could pose a terrorist opportunity'." (Thanks to Colin Campbell for pointing us at the WikiLeaks page).

(Log in to post comments)

The OS FUD war

Posted Oct 31, 2009 1:21 UTC (Sat) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link]

I have a sense, from talking to a lot of people in a lot of industries that, once again we are in a CUSP;

So, in private industry, outside the buyable CIOs, and there are not to many of those, in the first rank, wordwide the benefits and risks of FOSS are now well understood, even though Meverou Nelie Kroes will shortly retire, the Regulators, bidable though they tend to be now, at least, understand the basic point.

Put another way, the genie is out of the bottle. no one now gets fired for buying Linux, but vide LSE, they DO get fired for buying M$+Accenture, if it fails, as it always does. See the latest US-DOD advice. That is enough to STFU the PHB brigade.

So the entire issue turns on good information and freedom of choice.

FOSS is well past the tipping point, and the brighter non-nerds begin to understand why:

Voting has to be OS

Med Records need to follow Vets System

A secure desktop saves a shitload of money

Migration to non local platforms, Browser/FireFox/Chrome Chrome OS, Android, Maemo is happening, destroying all the years of M$ adopt, embrace, extend on the desktop

Java, and C# and their libraries become margenelised by Python and the cloud

Old game over.

The OS FUD war

Posted Nov 4, 2009 9:54 UTC (Wed) by sylvain.nahas (guest, #61022) [Link]

your post is interesting, but would make a lot more sense to me if you were kind enough to explicit the acronyms you use.

Thanks,
Sylvain

Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Posted Oct 31, 2009 5:57 UTC (Sat) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link]

Near the beginning of the "Total Cost of Ownership" Abram tries a variation on a familiar open source meme, but only gets half way there. Let me finish it for him:

Free as in kittens vs. Free as in Speech.

Why does THIS meme belong in a discussion of TCO? Because if you start thinking about it you might start wondering what kind of 'ownership' we're arguing about. After all, it isn't YOU who owns the software. You're merely leasing it from the vendor. The 'ownership' that's going on here is that the vendor owns a bit of you.

So what is the Total Cost of being Owned?

It might be a price jump the next time you start to negotiate a contract.

It might be vendor practicing 'self help' -- remotely disabling its software on your machines.

It might be the data YOU entered over several years turning into irretrievable garbage -- lost to some propitiatory and undocumented file format. This can happen if the vendor goes out of business or if the vendor simply decides to go in new direction.

Vendors want to talk about TCO? Good. Let's do JUST THAT.

Later in the paper Abram tries to spin "SaaS" into "Software as a Solution" -- huh? I guess you can't say "software as a service" because that might remind you -- once again -- you don't own anything. Similarly Abram recasts "caveat emptor" as "let the installer beware."

Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Posted Oct 31, 2009 12:49 UTC (Sat) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Why does THIS meme belong in a discussion of TCO? Because if you start thinking about it you might start wondering what kind of 'ownership' we're arguing about. After all, it isn't YOU who owns the software. You're merely leasing it from the vendor. The 'ownership' that's going on here is that the vendor owns a bit of you.

So what is the Total Cost of being Owned?"

This is a sweet point. Another angle might be to ask, when you spend what they say for their solution, what you actually own, if anything. And if you don't own the software at this price, how much would it cost to actually own it?

all the best,

drew

The kitten thing

Posted Nov 1, 2009 15:42 UTC (Sun) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link]

I'm always surprised when they try the kitten argument. It doesn't work out so well for the proprietary kitten vendor. Let's see:

First of all, you don't get a free kitten. You have to pay for the kitten. But you don't get ownership of the kitten, just a license to take care of it. Ownership of the kitten remains with the vendor.

The vendor does not guarantee the health of the kitten. If the kitten gets sick, you may return it for possible replacement or refund, at the vendor's option. You may not take it to an independent veterinarian or attempt to treat the kitten yourself.

You are the only one licensed to pet the kitten. You may not let anyone else pet the kitten. You may designate one other person as a Backup Petter, as long as you ensure that you and the Backup Petter never pet the kitten at the same time.

You must buy food for the kitten. You may only use food supplied by the kitten vendor. If the kitten vendor chooses to no longer supply food for this model of kitten, you must let the kitten starve.

Failure to follow all of these rules will result in heavy fines and possible criminal prosecution.

Alternately, you can get a free kitten from the free kitten project.

The kitten thing

Posted Nov 1, 2009 23:18 UTC (Sun) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Not only that, but with the free kitten project you get the opportunity to breed the kitten, possibly improving its descendants and the lives of others by giving them also the gift of a kitten.

The kitten thing

Posted Nov 2, 2009 18:41 UTC (Mon) by justme (guest, #19967) [Link]

I find it interesting that the proprietary software industry has tipped its hand - they understand, and are very happy with, the fact that their software is a burden to their customers.

Our best counter to the kitten argument is that the whole point is for the software to be a boon, and we allow the user to do whatever they have to to make their software a boon, even if they wish to fire us as their vet, groomer, trainer, and breeder.

Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Posted Oct 31, 2009 18:54 UTC (Sat) by cxtuttle (guest, #59713) [Link]

My library, Middletown, NJ , just switched to Koha on Oct. 15th. They had a pretty good article about it in there newsletter, unfortunely the PDF for the newsletter is not available on their website yet ( www.mtpl.org ). The summation of the story goes as follows.
There were running Dynix for 15 years and got a notice from the vendor that it would no longer be supported. So they did some research and settled on Koha. They hired PTFS of Bethesda, MD for implementation and some open source development. This cost for the development was split with the East Brunswick, NJ library which rolled out Koha in July 2009. I believe the development consisted of integration with a self-checkout system and a phone messaging system which calls up to remind you of overdue books.
The only other library using Koha in NJ is Highland Park wich was done in September 2008. Since Middletown is the 2nd busiest independent library, I have little doubt that other NJ libraries would adopt a similar system in the future. So yeah, these fellows should be worried. I don't think Librarians will be so easily fooled by this brochure.

Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software

Posted Nov 3, 2009 23:32 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Isn't this the report that actually RECOMMENDED Koha as one of its examples of GOOD proprietary software? !!!

Cheers,
Wol

Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware!

Posted Nov 1, 2009 13:32 UTC (Sun) by bawjaws (guest, #56952) [Link]

I find it amusing that the document clearly states its intention to create FUD by starting out with a
historical anecdote on the concept of Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware) in US law.

I couldn't help but note that, rather than the buyer losing out, in this historical case it was the
customer who had the more up to date grasp on the situation and it was the vendor who was still
working under outdated assumptions that no longer held.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laidlaw_v._Organ