Nederlands
English
Category: news
Ubuntu ‘protects’ against Microsoft claims
Dutch IT magazine ‘Webwereld’ (1, 2) asked me to comment on the news that Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu Linux, is offering legal protection against potential patent claims of Microsoft on Linux. Red Hat provides a comparable service and refers to it as a ‘necessary evil’
The vast majority of software patents are not legally recognized in Europe, making this one of those typical American problems mostly designed to make lawyers very rich. But leaving that aside, how solid are the claims anyway? 2003 Microsoft invested in the anemic software provider SCO to sue IBM on the basis of alleged ownership of crucial Unix/Linux components. The case lasted many years and achieved nothing. Except of course a lot of confusion in the marketplace amongst IT buyers who were considering moving to Linux, thereby sometimes delaying a firm decision. It would seem that this was the primary original objective.
Microsoft has been working for over a decade to undermine open source in general and Linux in particular – so far with limited success. Linux runs most webservers, all Tomtoms, most super computers and more phones than Windows mobile. Even on the desktop, Microsoft’s homebase, it is slowly gaining ground.
For a long time now Microsoft has been saying, about once a year, that ‘soon’ it will show its many patents that will make Linux unusable. Prof. Eben Moglen, chief council of the Free Software Foundation, explains this phenomenon in this video:
It would be both honourable and helpful if companies like Redhat and Canonical would extend the promise of legal protection not just to the users but also to the individual developers who work on Linux. It is these individuals who need the greatest protection, since they cannot afford to defend themselves legally against a company like Microsoft. As long as they don’t, the risk remains that Steve Balmer will continue his yearly ‘be very afraid tour‘, making some developers afraid to work on open source sofware. That is, of course, exactly what Balmer wants.
Meanwhile, EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes tells companies like Microsoft: put up or shut up. Wise words from someone who has some experience of dealing with the bullies from Redmond.
Kroes: vendor lock-in a waste of money
In a recent speech EU Commissioner Neelie Kroes stated that badly functioning IT markets and high vendor dependence have far-reaching consequences for the functioning of public bodies and companies in Europe. There is much to be gained, both economically and functionally, by focusing on open standards and open source software. ‘This is a waste of public funds no government can afford any longer.’
The Dutch IT magazine Computable.nl has a summary of the speech with my comments (original in Dutch – Google translation here). English commentary on the speech here, here and here.
Security workshop – Cascadis Webmasterclass
On 17th September Gendo held a workshop for the Cascadis Webmasterclass meeting. Arjen Kamphuis and Menso Heus gave attendees a broad overview of what the security landscape is like, what are the common threats and what participants could do about it.
The workshop participants worked for local governments, police and other government agencies and used a wide range of systems. By focusing on the theoretical principles of security instead of very specific system information, Gendo managed to keep everyone interested.
The reactions from participants was positive and the workshop was an ‘eye opener’ for many. At Gendo we were very happy about that. Next month we’re training another Webmaster Class, and on 18th November we shall be contributing to the Cascadis Congress – we look forward to it! Here are the slides in ODF and PDF.
Learn more about our vision of information security – an integral part of IT strategy.
Hamburg Declaration, newspapers can’t network
Last month, a group of European news outlets drew up the ‘Hamburg Declaration‘. It demands that the European authorities take measures to prevent the re-use (they call it theft) of ‘their’ content. They want to demand money for ‘their’ news, as they get with printed editions.
Of course, publishers are free to hide their articles and other content behind a wall, available only to subscribers. They can also prevent search engines from indexing (and saving) their content. They can even choose to have no website at all, and reach only a shrinking and aging audience. You do not have to be a twitter-using iPhone owner to predict what happens to a news organisation that starts a subscriber-only website or exists completely offline. For the growing number of readers of online news does not focus on individual outlets and there are many, many others which are eager to feed for free this readership’s insatiable hunger for information 24/7.
The publishers claim that their model is unsustainable if they unable to pay editors to maintain standards, and thus their role as the watchdog of democracy is at stake. This thesis contains two parts, both doubtful:
1. The need for a classic, paid editorial as the only possible way to make news and information accessible. Very touching in a month where the traditional media are dependent on the twitter- and youtube-savvy citizens in Iran. CNN calls on its viewers every 30 minutes to continue sending in videos (with some interesting results). Nowadays on most newspaper forums, the comments and links posted by readers are often more relevant than the content of the article, which is just a copy/paste of AP or Reuters, and I had those already. Once the subject matter is specialised (and that often occurs in a complex world), the editors may not have the in-depth knowledge to understand an issue, so it is better to go to a specialised site where the authors as well as the responding readers are professionals.
2. The crucial role of the traditional media as a watchdog of democracy. Where shall I begin, in an area so rich with juicy examples? The New York Times that, after more than a year, admits that it failed in just this role in the run-up to the attack on Iraq? The Dutch national newshour and so-called "quality newspaper", which accused Iran of having a nuclear weapons program, while both the CIA and experts such as the International Atomic Energy Agency are confident that this is not the case? The constant failure to ask the truly painful questions, as they might prevent editors from being ‘granted’ the occiasional scoop? Bloggers who report things that should be in the national news? Or how about Mr Broertjes, editor of The Volksrant, who talked about a reducing investigative journalism because it meant taking people "out of production". ‘Production’ in this context means reading the AP/AP or Reuters newsfeeds and other news releases, then quickly writing a short article. Exactly the behaviour newspapers accuse bloggers of.
Based on my experience of the established media in recent years, I just do not trust them as a primary source of information about interesting events; too often they have failed to ask the difficult questions. And whether that is down to incompetence, lack of courage or something else does not matter much. In a Europe where surveillance and censorship have become normal and where we get dragged into wars and occupations, there is plenty for the guardians of democracy to do.
So if the former watchdogs take up that role again I will pay for a subscription, provided I get the information in a way that suits my lifestyle (and not once every 24 hours on a piece of dead tree). From the former office of Mr Broertjes, I hope the editorial staff find both courage and a spine.
