Common sense
Common sense
Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:28 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Common sense by foom
Parent article: Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica)
Thank you for your support. You make some good points there and I just answered those questions in detail and posted my detailed reply about a minute before you posted yours.
The drama *I* don't get is why there seem to be so many people who are so anti-TurboHercules/anti-FlorianMueller...AFAICT he's just defending himself against unsubstatiated innuendos and falsehoods.
Thanks for this support in particular. If you look at who writes those things, it comes down to a very few user names: Wol, vonbrand, rebentisch. Wol has made himself ridiculous by claiming a patent infringement isn't a patent violation, and he's a big-time Groklaw user. I also saw a "vonbrand" profile up on Groklaw but the name isn't familiar.
There are also many reasonable people on Groklaw. However, that "PJ" (who has never spoken up at an industry conference or anything like that, so she must have something to hide) has misled her fanboys. More and more reasonable Groklaw people realize PJ sometimes simply lies. Her false but now definitely refuted claim that I wanted to un-GPL MySQL is a perfect example of a lie, and she furthermore lied about me in connection with the Munich Linux migration (she claimed that I lied about it, although I only told the truth, and blamed things on me I was never responsible for). And I could give examples of where she even misstates one of the most basic aspects of the GPL.
"rebentisch" is an activist with the FFII. The FFII started the resistance against software patents in Europe, but that wasn't his achievement. He always opposed what I did, but ultimately my strategic impulses played a role in getting the EU software patent bill rejected. So one might almost conclude that it's always best to want the opposite of what he wants. More importantly, he was involved with some of that "open standards" lobbying, and the people and organizations in that field are pretty much IBM-aligned because IBM contributes more funding to that kind of activity than any other company. Note that I'm for truly open standards. I'm just against open double standards and explained that in the posting I already reference at the start.
So the opinions expressed by those kinds of people here aren't representative of how the wider community feels. Believe me, your common sense approach is much more widespread than a discussion like this might show. But let's be patient: the European Commission has already taken a very important step by launching antitrust probes, and the longer it takes, the more lies we can expect from the usual suspects, but at the same time, more and more of the truth will come out and ever more people will realize that some people didn't tell them the truth. I have enough patience and perseverance, but again, it feels good to be supported already now.
Posted Aug 20, 2010 14:47 UTC (Fri)
by spaetz (guest, #32870)
[Link] (4 responses)
>However, that "PJ" (who has never spoken up at an industry conference or anything like that, so she must have something to hide)
I don't have anything against you (besides that the noise annoys me), but THAT argument is undue and indecent and lets you be my #2 in my plonk list. Sorry dude, I have never spoken at an industry conference either and would prefer to keep it that way, so I must have something to hide as well. Even if a person choses to remain completely anonymous and even if she were totally fictious, that doesn't make her information or analyses less interesting or credible (if backed up by facts). And before you put me in some groklaw corner, I visit that page every 2 months and have never posted there.
Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:18 UTC (Fri)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (3 responses)
I understand what you mean, but please appreciate that all the time I've been just responding to what others brought up, debunking Groklie after Groklie (which doesn't necessarily make the people who were misled liars -- at least some of them were undoubtedly sincere). All I had said in my second reply far up above was that the European Commission's decision to launch investigations shows that it wasn't as pointless as some claimed. I didn't even want to address any details because that simple statement stood on its own. Certain people then raised detail after detail, and I reacted. Sorry, but if you rethink this, you may notice all by yourself that this is flawed. There's a large audience that gets the chance to hear the opposing points of view and form an opinion. Some have in fact expressed appreciation for that opportunity, right here on this page. What you say would mean that there should never be a debate in any of the houses of US Congress, and it would do away with the vast majority of all TV shows. The participants in those debates won't change their points of view either, but there's value to an audience interested in the subject. OK, so please forgive me if I you are a public figure and I just didn't recognize your user name here. For now I assume that you are not. Therefore, your decision not to speak at industry conferences is a totally different thing than if you talk about a person like PJ. PJ is the only public figure in FOSS never to have spoken at an industry conference nor to have disclosed her professional track record (former and current employers). I will admit that for the sake of brevity I didn't add that there's no information about her biography that's available. That combined with her absence from public events is even more unique. My track record is well-documented and I think it's reasonable to expect that of people who have a certain level of exposure in such debates. It's a matter of transparency. There must be a balance between transparency and privacy, and where the balance is struck is very much related to the exposure someone gets (and utilizes to influence opinion-forming processes). In your case that may be the right one; in my case it is; in PJ's case it definitely isn't. It does raise serious questions. What you say about whether things are less interesting or credible (if backed up by facts) is true at first sight, but too idealistic. Please take into account that there are a number of fanboys who are basically brainwashed by her, to varying degrees. Of course I always want to focus on the facts. If you look at the things I wrote in this discussion here, you can see it's about 99% about the issues and only 1% about such credibility matters.
Posted Sep 3, 2010 0:10 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
There are a good few shy people in this field, y'know. Some of them run significant free software projects. But perhaps that doesn't make them 'public' enough.
Posted Sep 3, 2010 3:38 UTC (Fri)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (1 responses)
In my opinion, one key criterion is whether people influence political debates aggressively.
Someone who contributes code and uploads it to a repository -- or moderates/maintains such a code base -- may do something very important but isn't necessarily a public figure unless the project really is as world-famous as Linux, MySQL, Apache and a few others.
PJ doesn't do any of that. What she does is political activism and in that area I don't know anyone else hiding like that. She comes up with conspiracy theories about others but never even presents herself, meaning there may be very very interesting things that would come out the moment she'd take the risk of anyone identifying her because of some direct or indrect connection with something or someone.
Posted Sep 3, 2010 21:27 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
But perhaps you'd prefer to believe your conspiracy theory than someone's words. You really are more like PJ than you realise :/
Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:34 UTC (Fri)
by rebentisch (guest, #69660)
[Link] (5 responses)
You see, you incite drama, argue in a sloppy way and then you go ad hominem.
The reader above confirms the dominant narrative: That TH as a company was set up for the very purpose to go after IBM's mainframe business. We may differ whether we think TH management was naive or knew the escalation process leading to an antitrust process in advance. I don't see why you have to oppose that so fiercely... Nothing wrong about it, you are free to tell alternative stories and convince the relevant stakeholders. Good luck! I could not care less.
Posted Aug 20, 2010 16:56 UTC (Fri)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (4 responses)
The discussant you refer to supported my views to a hugely greater extent than yours. Your claim is a "staged" drama, and for a strong claim you present nothing in terms of strong facts. Not even strong indications. All you have is a time line, and I just explained in this comment that since IBM doesn't treat the Hercules open source project any better than it treats the TH company, we talk about an 11-year-old project, even if a young company then lodged the complaint, after eight months of trying to work things out with IBM. I explained that MySQL took even longer from the start of the FOSS project to the foundation of the MySQL company. Just like in TH's case, the founder of the project also founded the company.
Posted Aug 22, 2010 17:43 UTC (Sun)
by rebentisch (guest, #69660)
[Link] (3 responses)
You are free to share your views, but others enjoy the same freedom. If you feel rightious, as food for thought:
Posted Aug 22, 2010 17:54 UTC (Sun)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (2 responses)
To answer all of your questions at once (because they're overlapping and I can't see why you have two bullet points), there are two reasons for which I help shed light on the issue. One, I was the first one (although just by coincidence) to publish IBM's threat letter (Eric Raymond was also about to do it) and that's why I get blamed by some for whatever "Groklies" some have been told about the TurboHercules case. So this is about the appropriateness and accuracy of my blogging. Two, I'm indeed very sympathetic to TurboHercules's situation because it's exactly the kind of destructive, anticompetitive use of software patents against FOSS that I always feared would happen. As you actually know all too well, others in our anti-software-patent movement criticized me back in 2004/2005 for talking too much about the threat software patents represent to FOSS. So it's a situation I've cared about for a long time, even when others said it should be positioned as only a small and medium-sized business (SMB) issue. I actually tried with my NoSoftwarePatents campaign to strike about a 50-50 balance between FOSS and SMB concerns. TurboHercules is both: it's FOSS and it's a start-up. I repeat that you made strong claims and served extremely weak tea when asked to substantiate them. So far, the European Commission's view of the case is apparently very different from yours. When they deal with cases, they have case teams assigned to them (consisting of people with legal, economic and technical knowledge), and they have access to lots of material. It's surprising that you consider yourself in a better position to assess the case.
Posted Aug 22, 2010 19:08 UTC (Sun)
by rebentisch (guest, #69660)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 22, 2010 19:14 UTC (Sun)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link]
Posted Sep 3, 2010 0:05 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
As someone with no dog in this fight (but a strong loathing of software patents and newSCO) both PJ *and* you come across as, bluntly, willing to discard tact and at times common sense in the pursuit of your goals, and you both seem very prone to accusing others of conspiracy without providing proof... In your case I suspect some of this is a language barrier. In PJ's case I suspect the paranoia comes from SCO *actually* conspiring against her (which would make anyone paranoid), and the assumption that the enemy of her enemy must be her friend in all matters (obviously fallacious as far as I can see).
Common sense
Common sense
But that constant bickering and noise here are enough now.
It is apparent to me that the involved people here are not interested in changing their point of view, why don't you all shut up for a while and go outside for a bit.
THAT argument is undue and indecent and lets you be my #2 in my plonk list. Sorry dude, I have never spoken at an industry conference either and would prefer to keep it that way, so I must have something to hide as well. Even if a person choses to remain completely anonymous and even if she were totally fictious, that doesn't make her information or analyses less interesting or credible (if backed up by facts).
Common sense
PJ is the only public figure in FOSS never to have spoken at an industry conference
That's utter and complete rubbish, unless you define 'public figure' so narrowly that it excludes virtually everyone but Linus (or perhaps you define it it mean 'people who have spoken at industry conferences, plus PJ').
Common sense
Common sense
Misanthropy
He always opposed what I did, but ultimately my strategic impulses played a role in getting...
I am sorry for you. Misanthropy
The discussant... supported my views to a hugely greater extent than yours.Selling Popcorn
The discussant didn't understand why you get opposition (because you attack anyone for unknown reasons) and had his independent thoughts.
Two reasons why
Two reasons why
Two reasons why
Common sense