Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
Open Source in Politics
Two of the Democratic candidates for president have announced open source
efforts to help their campaigns. Howard Dean's campaign has launched DeanSpace, a software package for
running websites for Dean supporters. Wesley Clark's campaign recently announced
the creation of Clark's TechCorps, which is supposed to
provide "a framework for involving open source software developers in the
Clark campaign."
Since both campaigns are boasting their use of open source, we decided we should get in touch with the Clark and Dean campaigns to see where they stand on open source and related issues. The high-profile usage of open source by the Dean and Clark campaigns may have given the open source community the impression that 2004 might be "the year" that open source and tech issues will become a high profile issue in election-year debates. It might also cause people to get the impression that both candidates are staunch supporters of open source usage. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. We managed to get in touch with representatives from both campaigns, to find out if their use of open source would translate into advocating open source in government, and saner polices regarding tech policy We also wanted to get a lead on their positions on other issues, such as software patents and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Due to the rigors of the campaign trail, neither candidate was personally available for questions. We first spoke with Josh Lerner, who is the director of technology for the Clark campaign. Lerner said that they have "no bias in favor of, for or against any particular model, we can't afford to be religious about it." Lerner said that the Clark campaign had decided to use open source out of "expedience."
We didn't have the time to do a lot of evaluation of software, you go with
what works. The OS and tools and all that stuff just works for the most
part... we are [also] using proprietary software where it makes sense.
According to Lerner, Clark is "putting together a bunch of heavy-weight technology people" to form a policy on technology use in government. At this time, however, Clark has not yet put forth an official policy on tech issues and it may be some time before any policies are forthcoming. We also asked Lerner if he thought that these issues would play a big part in the upcoming election. He said that he thought it might be an issue, and that "people in the campaign are talking about it. Not everything makes it out the door." Unfortunately, we were unable to schedule a phone interview with anyone from the Dean campaign. However, we did manage to track down Zephyr Teachout, the director of Internet Organizing & Outreach for the Dean campaign via e-mail. We asked why the campaign had chosen open source software for DeanSpace, whether cost was a factor or if proprietary software wasn't up to the task.
Cost is only one of the factors in our use of open-source software. We
also greatly value the reliability and security that is inherent in mature
open-source software. Additionally, using open-source allows us to focus
our resources more effectively. Recently, we launched an official Dean web
site for every state. Rather than building all of the site functionality
from scratch, we chose to build on top of DeanSpace (an open-source tool
developed by our grassroots supporters for creating Dean-related community
websites). DeanSpace itself was built on top of the open-source Drupal
community system. This is just one example of how open-source software has
allowed us to focus our energy on getting Howard Dean elected.
Not everyone is a fan of the use of open source by the campaigns. Dave Winer had some harsh words for both campaigns, which elicited a response from Jim Moore -- the Director of Internet and Information Services for the Dean campaign:
At Dean for America, it is our policy to purchase software rather than to
make it, and to work with vendors large and small to help them be
successful while also pursuing our own success as a grassroots-powered
presidential campaign. We strongly support small businesses for a variety
of reasons, including that they are the major contributors to employment
growth in our nation.
...Like most enterprises we prefer to buy software and services, but
sometimes must make our own. The make/buy decision can be tough. In many
cases, vendors do not provide solutions that integrate the features that
campaigns need, and companies may not see campaigns as a particularly
attractive market. In such cases we sometimes need to make internal changes
to existing software and services or develop our own. This is particularly
the case in a campaign like ours that is innovating in grassroots
philosophy and the use of information and communication technology. We asked the Dean campaign about Moore's response, and asked if they had a position on the use of open source in government.
We do not have a position on open-source in government.
Within our campaign, we use a mix of open-source and commercial software. Often, we work with commercial vendors when deploying open-source tools. We recently put our main website into the open-source Bricolage content management system, but did so with the assistance of Kineticode a vendor that supports this open-source product. Our primary goal is to focus our human and financial resources on winning the Democratic nomination and the election next November. Sometimes this goal is best accomplished by buying a commercial product, often it means deploying open-source, and other times it means developing tools in-house. We also asked if the Dean campaign had a position on the DMCA or digital rights, and got this response:
Issues of intellectual property are very important to a knowledge-based
society. Ultimately we are going to need to find a solution that both
encourages innovation and protects consumers from out-of-control corporate
tactics.
Finally, since open source development is based on collaboration, we asked both campaigns if there was any cross-pollination between DeanSpace and TechCorps. At the moment, it would appear not. Neither campaign was aware of any collaboration between the two efforts. Lerner did say that his group is "hoping we can get some of these other independent efforts to join up, and we'll announce it as it happens." He also said that he wants to see TechCorps continue, even past Clark's campaign. "Our stuff is out there and it's going to stay out there... as a separate issue, we want the TechCorps site to live on and be self-sustaining." (Log in to post comments)
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 12, 2004 21:09 UTC (Mon) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] Way to ride the fence, Dean and Clark camps.I sure wish there wasn't a two party political system here in the US. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the 1998-era DMCA and Sonny Bono acts that passed through a Republican Congress and were signed by a Democratic President. Booo! The "We suck less" logic is overly used in a political contexts. It would be a much better deal if everyone would concentrate on not sucking at all instead of less than the other guys. There's a lot of people who disagree with their political party on important things yet still support their party. Cut it out! It's you people that make things for me worse by indirectly supporting things you don't even agree with. Even if you don't care about my fair use rights, what about your own? I own a DVD drive in my a laptop. I own a few DVDs. I haven't, nor should I have to, sneak deCSS onto my system to watch the DVD on the hardware I own.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 13, 2004 1:35 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I own a DVD drive in my a laptop. I own a few DVDs. I haven't, nor should I have to, sneak deCSS onto my system to watch the DVD on the hardware I own. I *have* put libdvdcss on my hard drive, and to hell with the US government if they think I'm a felon or some such for watching DVDs I legally own (or have temporarily in my possession thanks to Netflix) on a DVD drive that I legally own. Fortunately, downloading and installing it is really easy, so it doesn't feel any more like "sneaking" than installing anything else that might not strictly meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. But it really, really should not be able to be construed as illegal. That's just stupid. After Dean appeared on Lessig's blog, I had high hopes that he would come out for rationality in copyright law. I'm very sad to see both camps come out with the same old non-statements that allow them to avoid pissing any(rich)body off while not really committing to anything. We need a real and viable candidate (which means, unfortunatley, somebody in one of our two dishrag already-bought-by-big-donors parties) to stand up and say, woah, that DMCA thing, that's insane! What were we thinking? That candidate would win my vote in an instant, I almost don't care what else they stand for. -Rob
Too early to have policies on *everything* Posted Jan 13, 2004 3:01 UTC (Tue) by goonie (guest, #4252) [Link] It's unrealistic to expect candidates to have detailed policies on every issue at this stage, where the US is still many months away from an election.Whilst copyright is an important long-term issue, there are others higher in the minds of most potential voters - whether they will get (or keep) a decent job, whether their family will be able to afford health care, whether they will be safe from people who want to harm them, how much money they'll have to give the government in taxes to pay for the above, and so on. Therefore, it's only reasonable for candidates to concentrate on the issues that are most important to the most people and fudge the less significant ones until they have had time to formulate the right policy. It's by no means the only issue that candidates haven't expressed an opinion on - to give another example of an issue that many Linux users might be interested in, Wesley Clark hasn't really expressed an opinion on manned space exploration yet.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 15:16 UTC (Thu) by skvidal (subscriber, #3094) [Link] I'm pretty sure it wasn't dean on lessig's blog. I think it was edwards.Unless lessig has also hosted dean there.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 22:40 UTC (Thu) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link] I think both candidates "guest blogged" for a while. And when I say thecandidate blogged you should read that to mean that their staff probably did all the blogging.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 16, 2004 23:20 UTC (Fri) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] The Dean campaign has been very strict that nobody else blogs under Dean's name.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 16, 2004 23:06 UTC (Fri) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] You probably don't remember Dean posting on Lessig's blog, because he was the first to do it, back in <a href="http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001371.shtml">July, 2003</a>.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 16, 2004 23:11 UTC (Fri) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] (I hit the darn "submit" button, instead of "preview" on that last post.)You probably don't remember Dean posting on Lessig's blog, because he was the first to do it, back in July, 2003. I guarantee that Dean did post on the blog himself. He also posts from time to time on his campaign blog.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 16, 2004 1:05 UTC (Fri) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] Dennis Kucinich seems to support sane copyright laws:http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001423.shtml "We must, once again, move to reclaim the promise inherent in Article 1, Section 8." Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution covers copyrights.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 12, 2004 21:37 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] The article seems to imply that commercial software is an alternative to open source. One can pay for software and support software companies yet use open source. Jim Moore doesn't seem to be against open source, at least that's how I understand his words.Richard Stallman proposed calling non-free software "proprietary". English is not my native language so I cannot comment if it's the best word. But "commecial" isn't such word. Free and open source software can be commercial. It has been said many times by people who base their business on free software. Quoting somebody talking in favor of commercial software and making him an enemy of free software is wrong. It alienates people. It may backfire some day. Remember that the people who run the electoral campaigns have limited time and resources. It's reasonable that they use the software that suites them. It's reasonable that they ask professionals to write their software. It's reasonable to charge for that work. You cannot just get a piece of software from SourceForge and base the campaign on it, risking to lose in 2004 and wait until 2008.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 12, 2004 22:19 UTC (Mon) by yohahn (subscriber, #4107) [Link] I must congratulate you on your comment. For one not working in their native language, it is quite insightful.Indeed, our hope should be that free software is/becomes commercial software. We should focus on doing a better job of equating these two words in our messages.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 14, 2004 8:22 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] My boilerplate spiel when talking to journalists includes: Anyone is permitted to offer distribution, customisation, or support of Free Software for a fee. This creates a free market where capitalism can work as intended, unhindered by monopolies or artificial restrictions. Pointing out the commercial possibilities while pre-empting the MS/SCO claims that Free Software is a "Free Lunch", "communist", or "hippie-ish".
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 13, 2004 6:47 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] I did note the bit about Jim Moore working with commercial vendors todeploy open-source software. It sounds to me like he understands that "commercial" talks about how you get stuff and "open-source" talks about the stuff you get, even if he doesn't avoid calling software "commercial". The Dean campaign (as an organization) is quite technically savvy, and it isn't too surprising that they'd be choosing software based on technical merits. It's also nice to hear that they found open-source software to be technically better.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 14:41 UTC (Thu) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] The article seems to imply that commercial software is an alternative to open source. Unfortunately, it is the politicians (or at least their staffers) who imply this. (I suspect and dearly hope the author understands the non-orthogonality of these concepts.) This basic misunderstanding of our community's interests indicates that these candidates aren't going to help us, not without a lot of education and a change of heart. Not that this is especially surprising, but I guess some of us got our hearts up.
Open Source vs Noncommercial Posted Jan 16, 2004 18:07 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] It's a very astute observation that open source doesn't mean non-commercial.But the reason people confuse them is that in practice, open source and non-commercial are highly correlated. Commercial means involving trade. Most users of open source software, especially the visible ones, do not compensate the producer for it. Most developers of open source software do not do it for compensation. Conversely, there is very little closed-source non-commercial software in the world. What we have is one of these unfortunate terminology shifts, like when "IDE" comes to mean ATA.
Open Source vs Noncommercial Posted Jan 22, 2004 17:42 UTC (Thu) by syntaxis (subscriber, #18897) [Link] "there is very little closed-source non-commercial software in the world."Nonsense. What most people think of as "Freeware" is software provided free of charge with no strings attached, but without the source code. Such software is both closed-source and non-commercial.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 12, 2004 23:24 UTC (Mon) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] Dean posted on Lessig's blog last year. He makes heavy use of open source software, and his campaign has been heavily aided by technology advocates. He will be hard pressed to ignore our views on digital rights.Even so, it's a bit early for the Dean campaign to formulate a policy on digital rights. This is the stage in the campaign where Dean is starting to select his senior campaign advisors. I've written about this in my Kos diary.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 13, 2004 12:05 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] Dean posted on Lessig's blog last year. He makes heavy use of open source software, and his campaign has been heavily aided by technology advocates.So he's using this to his advantage... He will be hard pressed to ignore our views on digital rights....or that's the perception strategy... Even so, it's a bit early for the Dean campaign to formulate a policy on digital rights.Perhaps in detail, but the obvious level of "own DVD, own DVD drive, can't play DVD even though the code is available outside of artificial legal restriction" is still there. Really, how obvious do things need to be? This is not rhetorical, please fill me in here. He's been in contact with Lessig. The DVD/player/computer reality is painfully obvious within 30 minutes, even when looking at all sides with no background. Politicians back out of campaign promises all the time. When they won't even make something a campaign promise, be very concerned, especially when it is this obvious. On another note, I followed your link and noticed the "Help the Democratic Party raise the money" link from there. Just to repeat what I stated before, you partison people need to bark hard at your own houses. The (quoting from your page) "Dean should understand" doesn't cut it. People involved with political parties spend way too much time on 'they suck' and need to spend more time on 'we could be better'. The 'oh geez, I sure hope they'll do good' procedure doesn't work in general, let alone with politicians. I agree that indepth policy can be tricky, but the easy stuff like "own DVD, own hardware, software freely available" is not. If that's a struggle, well, draw your own logical conclusion. If that's potentially conflicting with something else it shouldn't be, and again take a deeper look. You know better. Bark and bark hard! I know you're an active participant in a two-party system that has removed obvious rights from me as well as yourself. Stop feeding it and start fixing it or continue to be part of the problem. You have full right to do whatever you want. I wouldn't fund anything unless
Please don't take this as disrespectful. I am very frustrated. I bought a laptop to put Red Hat on last year that had a DVD and my wife wondered why I couldn't play a DVD on there. I had to explain. Then I went back and read further. It only got worse.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 3:11 UTC (Thu) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] If you want to bark at Dean, go for it. But, Dean is actually our best chance for reform in this area. His Net Advisory Net is a good indication of that.Politicians do break their campaign promises, but Dean is a very special candidate. His main source of monetary support turns out not to be from unions or corporations, but from small donors like you and me. Ok, not like you. But, like me. If he is elected and sells us out, it will be at his own political peril. I take the "you partisan people" label with some pride. I'm participating in the political process. What are you doing to try to make things better? Just so you know a little more about me, I'm a slightly left of center independent, who reregistered as a Democrat for the sole purpose of voting for Dean. Like most Dean supporters, I've never participated in politics before. The "Help the Democratic Party raise the money" link isn't mine. I don't donate to the Democratic Party, only to the Dean campaign and Moveon. The link you saw is displayed by the parent site which my diary resides on. Finally, since I've mentioned Moveon, I feel the need to head off a possibly scathing attack on the so-called Moveon "advertisements" comparing Bush to Hitler. Moveon held a contest. There were over 100 entries, and two of them made allusions to Hitler or the Nazi party. These were nothing more than contest submissions, and they were voted down by the membership. Moveon has promised to screen this kind of stuff more carefully in the future. OK, that's far more politics than should be posted here, but I wanted to respond to your comments.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 4:49 UTC (Thu) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] I take the "you partisan people" label with some pride. I'm participating in the political process. What are you doing to try to make things better?A couple days ago I tried to discourage supporting the two party system that's gotten us where we are today. As to Dean, I don't know. I do know that sending money to "our best chance for reform in this area" doesn't cut it with me. How much of that is positioning vs. result? Hard to tell from here. Now Rick Boucher, there's a guy who's got it figured out. Maybe Dean will get it done, but betting on the politician who looks most promising isn't sufficient for me. I've been underemployed for the last year plus, but back in my money to spare days I dropped it on toys for needy children around the holidays and tried to pay for Disc Golf equipment for a local park (this was rejected through parks and rec, though). I have no problem supporting things I believe in. I do have problems with supporting a maybe. Political parties form a great mechanism to get people to directly or indirectly support things they don't believe in. I'll pass on that.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 6:26 UTC (Thu) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] "A couple days ago I tried to discourage supporting the two party system that's gotten us where we are today."Not much chance of a third party effectively challenging the status quo, unfortunately. The laws have been crafted to prevent such an occurrence.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 22:50 UTC (Thu) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link] I'm surprised at MoveOn's reaction to those attacks. Why do they distancethemselves so much from those submissions but not from others? I have to admit I haven't viewed them myself so maybe they really are as unfair as everyone says but I don't think it's completely unreasonable to make comparisons with Hitler. That is not to say the current administration is killing millions of people or that they are evil, but there ARE comparisons which can be made about suspending civil rights in the name of protecting the father^Whome land.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 16, 2004 23:00 UTC (Fri) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] The Moveon "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad submissions were as varied as the people who sent them in. There's no way to judge whether they were fair or unfair as a whole. Some were terrible, others excellent. Some were comedic, others thoughtful. The entry which won the contest was Child's Pay, which I highly recommend watching online, since CBS has refused to air it during the Super Bowl (they claim it is CBS policy not to air "issue ads").
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 18, 2004 3:43 UTC (Sun) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] "you partison people need to bark hard at your own houses." That's exactly why I'm working to get Howard Dean elected. The only way to change the system is to work within it, as Thom Hartmann pointed out last March.
Dean's Net Advisory Network Posted Jan 13, 2004 0:18 UTC (Tue) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] rfunk pointed out to me that Lawrence Lessig is on Dean's Net Advisory Net:The Net Advisory Net, or NAN, is a collection of advisors working with one another to frame Internet Policy issues for Governor Dean and his staff, and recommend approaches towards technology issues for a Dean Administration. The Dean Net Advisory Team will present to the Governor and his team diverse and highly-informed opinions concerning the Internet and its potential impact upon society.How about an LWN.net follow-up article about Dean's Net Advisory Network?
A cause for optimism? Posted Jan 13, 2004 12:02 UTC (Tue) by mwh (guest, #582) [Link] It seems to me that both campaigns are saying "well, we're just trying to use the best tools for the job" and then using open source solutions.Isn't that, in a way, the best thing they could possibly have said?
A cause for optimism? Posted Jan 13, 2004 16:42 UTC (Tue) by TheOneKEA (subscriber, #615) [Link] Yes. One thing that people seem to forget is that moderate OSS users want to see OSS software become the equal of closed source software, not totally obliterate it. THe moderates want a world where both can be equally used without fearing the loss of accountability, support, features, or data.The comments from the members of the Clark and Dean campaign teams espouse that exact type of moderate behavior, and I applaud them for that.
A cause for optimism? Posted Jan 15, 2004 7:21 UTC (Thu) by guybar (guest, #798) [Link] Isn't that, in a way, the best thing they could possibly have said?I know very little specific on the US democracy, but I think the answer in every democracy is a definate NO. One votes to affect national priorities. If a candidate's technical staff is using OSS, then that is very good: They are, naturaly, among the people advising him. But from the candidate a statement of national policy is what's needed, not a statement w.r.t. OSS and campaign efficiency.
You have to understand their situation Posted Jan 13, 2004 15:00 UTC (Tue) by jabby (guest, #2648) [Link] The candidates are now in the period of time where they are under the greatest scrutiny and the most pressure to appeal to as many groups as possible so that they can get elected. They don't want to alienate *anyone* (even the DRM contingent) at the moment. Once the election is over, then they will be more free to declare their ideas and policies.Kucinich aside, this is par for the course. I have faith that Dean will do right by us once the election is over.
You have to understand their situation Posted Jan 15, 2004 1:51 UTC (Thu) by iwilcox (guest, #18701) [Link] > They don't want to alienate *anyone* (even the DRM contingent) at> the moment. Once the election is over, then they will be more free > to declare their ideas and policies. s/declare/decide on/, probably in repayment of campaign contributions.
You have to understand their situation Posted Jan 15, 2004 18:10 UTC (Thu) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] Kucinich aside, this is par for the course. I have faith that Dean will do right by us once the election is over. If somebody really explains the issues to him, Dean will probably to the right thing. A Vermont farmer I know complained about Dean's farm policy--she felt he'd screwed up on a couple of issues near and dear to her heart. But she's working to get him elected, and she said, "I don't think that more than 10% of Dean can be bought." AFAICT, Dean typically reads a lot of reports, listens to smart people, figures out what's politically feasible, and chooses a course of action. Then, he fights like hell. When he's right, he accomplishes a lot. When he's wrong, it can be pretty painful. Fortunately, he's right more often than he's wrong. So, on technology issues, does Dean have good advisors? Will he end up reading the right reports? Will the right thing be politically feasible? If so, you can probably count on him. And so far, the signs are good--he's listening to Lessig, and there are some open source geeks in his campaign.
Open Source in Politics Posted Jan 15, 2004 15:59 UTC (Thu) by rgoates (guest, #3280) [Link] Great article, Zonker! Maybe LWN should spin off an investigative journalism arm (just kidding) :)
Kudos for LWN.net! Posted Jan 16, 2004 23:25 UTC (Fri) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] I agree. Excellent article, Zonker. Very topical.
Dean's Internet policy Posted Jan 18, 2004 7:32 UTC (Sun) by stonedown (guest, #2987) [Link] Here is a very nice explanation of Dean's Internet policy.
|
|||||||||||||