OStatic

by fauno on Jan. 28, 2010

would you say the same from PETA or Greenpeace?

by Jeff on Jan. 28, 2010

You hit the nail on the head. I love Free Software and have been spending a huge amount of my free time hacking on it to make it better for the average joe (taking suggestions from real-world users like my parents, aunts, uncles, non-Linux-using friends, etc) and trying to meet their needs. The only way Free Software will ever be interesting to them is if it is feature comparable and as flashy ("ooh, shiny!") as the proprietary alternatives.

Pleading with them to use Linux because you get access to the source code and trying to tell them that Free Software is morally and/or ethically superior isn't convincing them nor is it ever likely to. Same with complaining about the evilness of DRM. They simply don't care that much - they'd rather have DRM but be able to do the things they want to do than be unable to do what they want but be DRM-free.

by Jeff on Jan. 28, 2010

fauno: yes, I would say the same about PETA and Greenpeace.

(first off, both organizations are corrupt, but I'll ignore that for now...)

Let me ask you this: are you more likely to convince average Joe to use a green energy source if it is /more/ expensive than their current non-green source is? Or are you more likely to convince them if the green energy source is /cheaper/?

It's really a no-brainer.

It's the same with DRM and Free Software.

by Vivek Khurana on Jan. 28, 2010

I think FSF and DBD are doing a great job. They are educating people and not abetting manipulative, monopolistic business like you are doing.

The alternatives will come when consumers start demanding and consumers will start demanding when they become aware of the alternatives. In a way DBD and FSF are increasing competition which is good for the economy.

It was careless on your part to write DBD as a marketing campaign. This clearly shows how naive you are with your understanding of market and marketing campaigns. A marketing campaign is conducted to increase sales and revenue. Please tell me what do FSF gains in terms of revenue if Apple or any other monopolistic vendor opens up the offerings and reduces lock down ? Even if these vendors move to Free Software the FSF or DBD will not gain anything from it, not in terms of direct revenue atleast.

Going by the ideas expressed in your article, anyone who tries to educate people about global warming is running a marketing campaign in favor of non-conventional energy companies.

Please be careful about what you write, as you are responsible for distorting views of several people.

by John First on Jan. 28, 2010

Hey Joe Brockmeier,

Does it pay to troll the free software foundation?

And of course you completely miss the point. Defective By Design works to raise awareness to the threat of DRM. It's a public awareness campaign! Sure the iPad will be popular, but the purpose of a campaign like this to educate people.

By your example, we would all be mindless idiots and in a perfect state to be exploited by trolls like you.

John

by cowbellemoo on Jan. 28, 2010

This is dogmatic free-market apologetics. Would you only support sweatshop-free clothiers who can undermine the prices of products produced with exploitation? There's a philosophical/moral dimension to technology purchases too that customers have to be aware of if they're going to make a choice.

by Joe Brockmeier on Jan. 28, 2010

@Vivek - whether DBD is a "marketing campaign" or "educational campaign" is really not the focus of what I've written. Bottom line: DBD is nothing but whining about what Apple is doing, but doesn't provide users with any alternatives or even recommending existing alternatives to Apple's new device. All DBD is doing is preaching to the converted. The messaging that they're using is wholly ineffective with users who aren't convinced that free software or open access is an ethical issue.

And yes, I would say the same thing about PETA -- by and large, PETA's campaigns have been very ineffective.

by anzaan on Jan. 29, 2010

Its always easier to shut up and not grease up and use your rusty brain and use it, than the alternatives.

Its even easier to get swayed by flashy marketing campaigns and swallow all that's thrown at you and believe all that you see or all that's projected.

Whatever happened to people's brain?

C'mon, Joe, just because you refuse to use your brain its doesn't mean you should start slanging at people who actually use their brain and present alternative views so that some other people who also like to use their brain can read them and decide things for themselves or at least learn a thing or two?

I'll never buy any of apple's products because I hate to be told what i can do and I can't do with things I have paid for.

Lots of people have no problem with that, but lots of people voted George Bush.... that too twice.

Enough said.

by The Arkady on Jan. 29, 2010

So, Apple making sure I can only comsume content they sell on their crapgadget (which certainly *isn't* about content comsumption if it doesn't have Flash) is a good thing?

Thanks, but no thanks. Odds are MWC in just over two weeks will offer a *better* device that's Android-based and offer more freedom.

Of course, that may only be attractive for users who manage to surf to more than one stop to get the content they want. Then again, the fact that so many people love iTunes because they're the digital equivalent of "not potty trained" will undoubtedly ensure the iPads success.

by Joe Brockmeier on Jan. 29, 2010

@Arkady did you actually *read* the post, or just react to criticism of the DBD thing as support of Apple?

Let me shorten it for you: Trashing what Apple is doing isn't going to change anything if all DBD does is say "don't use that!" If the FSF/DBD folks care so much about freedom, then stop going negative and put some work into delivering what people want without the DRM. Give people an alternative instead of just telling people what not to use.

Protesting Apple doesn't advance user freedom one iota if users don't have an alternative that is free. Right now, I don't see a Free device that competes with the iPad, so the choice DBD offers is "just say no" rather than saying "use this instead." Since about 98% of the population doesn't view software as an ethical issue at all, telling them that Apple is Bad for selling a restricted device is going to be about as effective as PETA telling me I shouldn't eat bacon because it's Bad to eat meat. If you don't share their world-view, their campaigns just come off as crazy. Same with DBD. It makes Free Software advocates look like fringe nutcases who are against Apple, but not really *for* anything.

As I said in the post, I don't think DBD is wrong on the facts - I think they're wrong on the approach. If people think that a petition is going to change anything, they're sadly mistaken.

Offering alternatives that are more free, however, does work. Try that instead.

by The Arkady on Jan. 29, 2010

What choice does FSF have, though? They have to say "don't buy that" now, before people go out of their way to preorder the damn thing. You know the Apple crowd. The FSF is not a hardware vendor, btw, which I'm not sure you're aware of (yes, I read the post).

What they could've done better of course is dig for alternatives. Camangi Webstation (http://www.camangi.com)? Not sure how good it is, haven't had one in hand. Likely products coming at the MWC? Well, you could only hypothize.

Lets hypothize too that that would've resulted in pretty much the same post, with an added paragraph that hypothetical alternatives are not alternatives all.

So okay, the FSF is sometimes full of it. That doesn't change the fact the iPad is bad all kinds of ways (hardware features, Apple DRM, price that Microsoft would have to offer twice as feature-laden a device to get away with, you name it) and it's legit to warn users away from it.

What's your alternative in terms of doing that?

Lastly, odds are Steve J. presented the iPad now because he, too, suspects that whatever comes at MWC is objectively better. I would've presented the damn thing now, too. Because in three weeks, pointing out alternatives might well be so trivially easy that critics like FSF wouldn't be faced with critcism of their own. And the iPad might get zilch coverage, as opposed to dominating the blogs for half a week.

If Steve is anything, it's an evil marketing genius that's inches shy of selling people a bridge in Brooklyn. I mean, he even got away launching the original iPhone in European countries where 3G coverage already was what AT&T may have, give or take, about Kingdom Come.

by Joe Brockmeier on Jan. 29, 2010

@Arkady Let's be honest with ourselves - how many people do you really think DBD will convince with their approach? My guess, almost zero. They can get the converted fired up against the iPad, but so what? They weren't going to buy it anyway.

That leaves the people who do need and would want an alternative. What's the FSF doing for them? Nothing. Convincing them that free software advocates are radical and impractical. That's it. Not helping "the cause" in the slightest.

"And the iPad might get zilch coverage, as opposed to dominating the blogs for half a week."

Oh, c'mon. Anything Apple does is going to get press. That's why DBD targets them. To ride on the coattails and try to get media attention. The DBD folks don't waste time on marginal proprietary products that have DRM but get little attention. In that, at least, they're spot on.

My alternative is that the FSF should do with the iPad what the GNU project did for proprietary UNIX. Provide an alternative.

What has moved free software so far along till now is not people saying "ooh, don't use proprietary UNIX, it's bad!" It's having free alternatives to proprietary UNIX that can be used. Look at the people using Linux in datacenters and so forth now. Most of them are not using it because of "ethics" they're using it because it's as good or better *and* it's Free. And that is what will carry Free Software to devices like the iPad. Not ridiculous petitions that wouldn't even convince the janitorial staff at Apple, much less the top brass.

by The Arkady on Jan. 29, 2010

It's not sensible to say the Free *Software* Foundation should provide a *hardware* alternative. Have them support the software aspect of alternatives. Oh, wait, they do. This GNU thing that comes with Linux.

Also, have you really read the petition, or just the press release?

The petition is somewhat more sensible than many of the things FSF and it's sister organizations have said/done over the years. I mean, it is based on facts of how Apple runs the iPhone App Store (Microsoft would likely get called the Nazi KGB Stasi or thereabouts if they imposed a regime like that). Compare that to, say, the FSFE attacking Windows 7 for having an unfixed bug at release (just like every other piece of commercial software on the planet).

The FSF responding to the iPad would make me - and likely others - wonder whether they're in Apple's pockets.

by Hans Bezemer on Jan. 30, 2010

I don't know where you're getting at. If the FSF achieves that people look for different devices or means, it will hurt Apple and they will look for an answer. Some people even don't know DRM is an issue, because there's no label on the package. The FSF got me to understand phones are involved as well, so I don't have a phone. I didn't know the iPad had DRM, so I can't use or port my S/W, so now it's out of the window. So.. what are they doing wrong??

by The Arkady on Jan. 30, 2010

Igad.

That should've been "The FSF NOT responding to the iPad" up there...

by Arne Babenhauserheide on Jan. 30, 2010

I was a rabid MacUser 5 years ago.

Then I learned about DRM, TPM and privacy. And I left Apple because they put in TPM chips into developer machines.

Today I'm a happy GNU/Linux user and I contribute from time to time to Gentoo, KDE and Mercurial.

(my way from Apple to GNU/Linux:

- http://bah.draketo.de/ (Broken Apple Heart in German)

- http://draketo.de/english/songs/light/broken-apple-heart (in english)

)

So DBD isn't only talking to the converted. Without actions like theirs, I wouldn't be a free software user today.

They just don't reach every average Joe with a single campaign. But who could? With a few hundred people?

What they can archieve is that once an average joe gets into problems with DRM, there's a chance that he won't think “surely I made a mistake. I'll just buy the stuff again” but “weren't there people who said that Apple tries to take my freedom? Seems they were right. I won't fall for them again!”

And they can reach critical thinking people, who realize they should also think about their freedom when they buy a new device.

by Gedece on Jan. 30, 2010

There's only one thing I'll say about your article that sounded bad to me. Your use of the term "People". It should have been "A portion of the market" or even "A big portion of the market". Because last time I checked, the ones like me that resist DRM plagged devices, the ones that create content, the ones that think that DFD is doing a great job, were considered people by the rest of the human race, .

by Tony Lawrence on Jan. 30, 2010

I'm ambivalent. I carry a fair share of "open source guilt" because I do tend to agree that the world would be a better place with open software, but I can also see the arguments of those who want to protect their intellectual property.

I don't think it makes much sense to complain about Apple. If you don't want content that is protected, then don't use it. If you have political opinions that no one should be allowed to protect digital content, well, good luck getting those laws changed. While we are waiting for you to convince voters to strike down those laws, Apple is just making a device that does what the laws say it can and should do.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with FSF trying to raise awareness. I may think it is an ineffectual effort, but hey, have at it.

Me? I'll probably be buying an iPad and I'll probably feel a little guilty about that. I won't feel guilty enough to lose any sleep.

by Chad on Jan. 30, 2010

Okay, first let me say, I'm an active member of Greenpeace and it is not corrupt. We do good work. Actually, I take offense to that statement.

Now, for the author of this article to say that "nobody cares", uh, I don't remember giving the author permission to speak for me. Yes, I'm absolutely sure that there are many out there that don't care but I would venture to guess that there are many out there that do. Please, when you write an article like this, remember not to put words in mouthes of others.

by an anonymous user on Jan. 30, 2010

Anyone with even half a brain knows to stay away from (Cr)apple products! They are all cheaply made junk, and the only way (Cr)apple survives is that bthey somehow arrange the delusion for people of less than average intelligence that somehow owning (Cr)apple vastly overpriced, crappy products makes them cool. Of course this is so not true! The iPod and iPhone are good examples. There are much better (and better made) products available.

Anyone with any intelligence at all can understand that DRM is bad, locked down hardware is bad, and that choice is good! From the descriptions I have read so far, (Cr)apple's iPad is pretty much useless. No storage media, no camera, no phone function, hard to type on, etc... Give me a notebook or netbook any day!

by an anonymous user on Jan. 30, 2010

"While Defective By Design highlights legitimate problems with the iPad (and other products) ..."

You do realise that is the entire point of the campaign right? Simply to educate and inform?

Way to miss the mark!

Haha. Even a 10 year old child could work that out.

by an anonymous user on Jan. 30, 2010

So many comments miss all the points

1/ FSF is dependent upon intellectual property in copyright to protect its software. So Tony Lawrence it isn't about that. Free Software is about cooperation to produce something good. The reason I support it is I see a better world if everyone cooperates than if a minority control almost all the wealth and thereby direction of society. To me it isn't (if you read enough history about revolutions and violent struggles) too much to say a future working that way is more likely to avoid wars.

2/ And as to every one flocking to Apple products, they don't. More people don't use or own them than do. So Joe Brockmeier's premise on which this short piece is based starts wrong.

3/ It continues to be further wrong because it does make a difference. It makes me aware of the limitations of the product and I in turn tell my friends and family of the drawbacks of their choices. Some of them have subsequently chosen differently.

But in the end it's possible that the biggest proportion will continue to choose (from my perspective) badly and we will end up in a world where a very large number of people won't like it. But that won't happen because that same majority won't fight to defend their ways when the rest of the people press change. In the end Apple's way will lose or humanity will lose.

by asad on Jan. 30, 2010

thanks

by Conrad on Jan. 30, 2010

DBD is telling you why smoking Apple Cigarettes is bad for you. You are saying that people *like* to smoke. You want to know where your alternatives are, and you think DBD should be telling you that, instead of telling you why Apple cigarettes are bad.

by an anonymous user on Jan. 31, 2010

I think some of you are missing the point. Defective By Design is a way of saying "no, I will not accept your sub-par product." DBD is a pressure on the ecosystem that encourages good, worthy design. Where would we be without it?

DBD is a voice that promotes being a customer, not a consumer. I'd honestly like to see the iPad bomb because it's an inferior product. How do we do that? By letting people know what a con the iPad is. By tell Apple that they can do better.

I'd love for Apple to come out with a extensible, expandable product in the vein of an iPad. Wouldn't you? If we don't voice our protest against the current state of such products, no such wonderful future product will ever come to fruition.

by Patrick on Jan. 31, 2010

Here's Jo's opinion:

"Once again the Defective by Design have sprung into action to denounce another product from Apple, and once again nobody really cares."

Who are these 'nobodies'?

To say DBD is out of touch with the majority of users implies that what they are focusing on is something that most people don't care about. There's no evidence of this provided. That many people are not reached by DBD and FSF is not evidence they don't care. It's evidence that both agencies are not reaching them.

Of all the people I know, I can think of only a few people who have heard of either. Then again, I can think of only a small minority (emphasis on small) who own an Apple product. Ipso facto, no-one cares about Apple or the things it produces.

I'm also not clear about what this means:

"Contrast the tone of the Defective by Design campaign with Stan Schroeder over at Mashable, who nails Apple's goals with the iPad"

The 'tone' of the campaign has no bearing on any of the facts. DBD oppose are critical of the limitations and Apple's aims. Stan appears to think that they'll be forgotten when people are sucked in to using it within it's limitations. Time will tell.

...and what is this:

"In other words, stop groaning about Apple and deliver a DRM device of your own, already."

Here are two related responses (more anyone?) to this sort of comment:

"Jo, why don't you get out their and develop your own advocacy service/agency and stop sitting here whining on a blog?"

Or

The next time you voice any comment about the disadvantaged of the world, get yourself post-graduate research qualifications and help them out for 20+ years or just shut-up already.

See? Irrelevant really. FSF and DBD are perfectly entitled to make the comments they do and to try to influence people (correctly, in my opinion) about the problems Apple-style products create. To say they should get out there and make products themselves is purely irrelevant. It's like criticising a health complaints commission for remonstrating against a hospital for poor service. They don't have to build a hospital to know what they're talking about and to critically challenge poor service.

All of this said, I think Jo has 'hit the nail on the head' when he suggests becoming involved with industry to produce a device which provides what they believe is preferable. Then again, I don't know that they don't. Can anyone provide any information about this?

That it is futile for DBD to 'carp' about the issues? I can't say it isn't effective. Jo refers to competitors providing non-defective MP3s motiving Apple to make a change. From a sociological perspective, the DBD and FSF etc all contribute to a discourse which subverts the status-quo, questions the necessity and acceptability of DRM'd crap and challenges the community of users to question their supine nature in the face of such products. As such, it would appear to me that some of their goals are being achieved.

by GNU? on Jan. 31, 2010

Hi. Thank you for this thoughtful post. I'd like to respond to your remark, "'[s]top telling people what they shouldn't buy, and make it easier for them to get hands on some kit that lets them do what they want to do with free software."

One might say that the FSF has been doing exactly this for the past 20 years or so. In a sense, the GNU Project is the ultimate "kit" that users can get their hands on. Some of the things this kit contains are:

• Ideas, principles, and strategies

• Community tools, services, and processes

• Software and documentation licenses

• Documentation

• Code, standards, and best practices

GNU/Linux is support on computers and devices in the world than any other operating system.

In this sense, the GNU Project is way for turning any general purpose computing device into a "kit that lets them do what they want to do with free software".

So, when a corporation like Apple or other corporations begin selling computers that use some technological or legal measures to prevent users from installing free software or having control over that device, then it makes sense that the FSF asks that company to remove those obstructions.

by an anonymous user on Jan. 31, 2010

Your trolling aside, the ipad sucks even more than air.

by an anonymous user on Feb. 01, 2010

"Your trolling aside, the ipad sucks even more than air."

Air blows, a lack of air, (vacuum) sucks.

It's interesting that FSF is trying to stand for "FREEDOM". And it appears they actually want to achieve anything BUT freedom.

FSF STATEMENT:

"A strong free software movement focused on the principles issues of software freedom - and a strong FSF in PARTICULAR - WILL DETERMINE WHAT FREEDOMS THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMPUTER USERS ENJOY. At stake is no less that the next generation's autonomy".

So the (strong) FSF "WILL DETERMINE WHAT FREEDOMS THE NEXT GENERATION OF COMPUTER USERS ENJOY".

Who are the FSF to determine what MY FREEDOMS are ?

FREEDOM:

Ability to act freely: A state in which somebody is ableto act and live as he or she chooses, WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT to any UNDUE RESTRAINTS OR RESTRICTIONS.

FREEDOM:

Philosophy; FREE WILL: the ability to exercise free will and make CHOICES INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY EXTERNAL DETERMINING FORCE. (such as the FSF).

FREEDOM: Absence of something unpleasant: the state of being unaffected by, or not subject to, something unpleassant or unwanted (Freedom from fear).

A country's right to ruleitself, without interference from, or domination by another country or power.

It's just that I do not believe the FSF or RMS has any rights to dictate what my freedoms are, and that by definition proprietary software, or interlectual property is something RMS or FSF has the right to determine it's value or morality.

What if I dont agree with the FSF or it's morals? does that mean im instantly "evil"?

No I dont think so, peoples morals are their own private issue, no one has a right to impress their morals on you.

FSF and RMS also consider breaking the law "ok", if it's for the greater good. Many people see this as IMMORAL, and unethical to disregard the laws of the land because you're "morals" are the higher goal.

the FSF is a charity, using charity money that could go to a REAL needy cause, not to fund RMS's perpetual hollidays, and sites that do not promote Free software, but are actual proporganda campains.

I wonder if FSF is also biased by their charity contributers, so that is why they tend to attack everyone else.

It's easier for FSF to attack proprietary than to promote FREE and as was said, actually offer services for FOSS.

And drop the "charity" with corporate funding, making it's money from patents, IP and proprietary knowledge. So much for the FSF and RMS. n

by an anonymous user on Feb. 01, 2010

"Let me ask you this: are you more likely to convince average Joe to use a green energy source if it is /more/ expensive than their current non-green source is? Or are you more likely to convince them if the green energy source is /cheaper/?"

Let me fire a wild guess: You're from the US.

Lots of people pay a premium for green energy because it's regarded as being ethically beneficent.

Not in Texas of course.

by Arne Babenhauserheide on Feb. 01, 2010

@anonymous coward: Some errors in your post:

1. “FSF morals”: The FSF doesn't talk about morals, but about ethics. It's strange to see you focus that much on words but missing this. Morals are a majority vote, ethics are the result or reasoning. You can read the FSFs reasoning on

- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html and

- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

If you don't agree, you're free to give counterarguments. Maybe you find some I didn't hear before, but most likely they'll already be debunked.

2. The FSF is a charity which gets money as donations from people who agree with their ethics, and who want them to get these ethics into the mainstream.

I donate 60 Euro every year to their European sister organization, the FSFE, so they can continue pursuing the cause and ethics I believe to be right. And they want to make this world a better place for all people, just like many other charity organisations.

3. They help free software. For example via savannah: https://savannah.gnu.org/

And they help debunking damaging blabber spread by people who don't like the free software and free culture ideals.

by an anonymous user on Feb. 01, 2010

Awesome. So somehow pointing out how a company's tactics are bad for the public and openness in general is now "whining".

Got it. We should all get in line to buy an iPad now, don't ask questions, don't point out potential pitfalls, get in line, drop your dollars and shut up.

BTW, your premise is completely false. You state that nobody cares. I think the comments here prove that people do care. I know I do, and its the reason I didn't buy an iPhone and its the reason I won't buy an iPad.

by David on Feb. 01, 2010

People have finally realised that RMS, FSF and boycottnovell are nothing more than religious fanatics.

Like all religious fanatics their fervour has marginalised them to the point of being radicals without reason.

They do more to hurt FOSS than they do to help it.

by David on Feb. 01, 2010

People have finally realised that RMS, FSF and boycottnovell are nothing more than religious fanatics.

Like all religious fanatics their fervour has marginalised them to the point of being radicals without reason.

They do more to hurt FOSS than they do to help it.

by none on Feb. 01, 2010

"Like all religious fanatics their fervour has marginalised them to the point of being radicals without reason."

Labelling any organization that dares to ask question about company motives like Apple or Microsoft as "religious fanactis" only expose the true intention of that trollish post to keep other people ignorant as possible and prevent them to make their own decision.

by David on Feb. 01, 2010

'Labelling any organisation that dares to ask question about company motives like Apple or Microsoft as "religious fanatics" '

Calling RMS's, FSF's and boycottnovell's behaviour as simply asking questions is disingenuous at best and intentionally obtuse at worst.

The FSF uses the legal system in the same manner that terrorists use airplanes! They are hell bent on destroying software patents, abolishing intellectual property, and ushering in a socialist utopia.

I repudiate everything they stand for. The rise in the adoption of open-source is because it is free as in beer, not because of their goofy religion. Just look at the biggest user, Google. They use open source and rarely contribute back they like the free cost. Apple contributes more code back than them. In other words both Google and Apple leech which is fine but they don't swallow the free religion kool-aid, and kudos to them.

by none on Feb. 01, 2010

Reply to David,

Why are there strange feeling your post is nothing than a personal crusade against those organizations? When you call them "religions", does that mean your posts is inquisition?

What is important is their messages because it raised a lot questions.

by John on Feb. 01, 2010

"The way I see it, the iPad is not about creating; it’s all about consuming content."

It's funny how the BIAS Apple propaganda always leaves out the important details. It's about CONSUMING RESTRICTIVE DRM-INFESTED APPLE-ONLY CONTENT.

Way to continue to stick it to the little guy OStatic. Nothing you say from this moment on is of any value to anyone.

by C.Whitman on Feb. 01, 2010

Well, I could easily argue that the reason "nobody cares" is that nobody cares about the iPad, period. Of course that's a generalization, but then so was the original statement. The iPad has been greeted with a collective yawn by the people I know (many of which are not Free Software fans). I fail to see what's compelling about it. I mean, the iPod and the iPhone are compelling in principle, at least (even though I've opted for an alternative music player, and my company issued Blackberry is the only cell phone in my possession). I don't see that with the iPad. If I want something convenient, then there are many devices that are more pocketable. If I don't mind the size, then there are devices that are more capable. Why bother?

When people realize that it's DRM that makes it so they can't do the things that they want to do, that's when they start to have a problem with it. I thought that DBD was just trying to get people to that point sooner.

by an anonymous user on Feb. 01, 2010

I didn't notice boycottnovell had become so important that is almost a flag to RMS detractors.You feed on fud and spit FUD.

by Bruce Byfield on Feb. 01, 2010

Hi, Zonker:

Your comments remind me of the ones made some years ago when Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd announced a campaign to intervene directly in the wolf hunt in British Columbia. Watson never saw a wolf or a hunter, and was even lost for a while (much to the pundits' amusement). But, for the time he was out there, the media was covering the issue, and peple were talking about it -- which was really his main purpose.

In the same way, whether DBD's efforts are successful depends on what criterion you choose. You assume that the efforts are to stop Apple's current practices, and judge it a failure. However, if the goal is also to get people talking about the issues, then the fact that you chose to write about them and 40 people chose to respond is evidence that, from a publicity viewpoint, they are effective.

by Bradley M. Kuhn on Feb. 02, 2010

I agree with Bruce Byfield on this. Not every campaign from FSF has been a winner (no one can get everything they do right, after all), but DBD is really an excellent campaign and has been extremely successful in raising awareness about the dangers of DRM.

[Disclaimer: I was the executive director of FSF from 2001-2005, but DBD started after I left FSF, so I am not 100% biased on this.]