German Linux Community Boycotting LinuxTag

em8chel writes "LinuxTag, Germany's major fair for Linux and Free Software, is facing a massive boycott from open source enthusiasts in the country this year. Although the event doesn't open for a week, the community is voicing their anger and disappointment on various forums about this year's LinuxTag running under the auspices of Wolfgang Schaeuble, the conservative Minister of Interior, whose positions on issues of interest to the community are controversial to say the very least. Due to online protests and calls for a boycott, the organizer of LinuxTag has released a statement (German version, serviceable Google translation), holding that the politician's policies and political views have nothing to do with supporting free software, adding that if the community boycotts LinuxTag, it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest, and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice."

Political albatross

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering Schäuble supported the invasion of Iraq by the United States, I can understand why many would not want to be associated with him. Then last month Schäuble said guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work. Sounds like this guy is kooky.

Re:

[Opportunist]

More scared shitless. Still, either is no mental state I would want a politician in, how do you expect him to make level headed, sensible decisions for your country?

Re:

[Opportunist]

The Germans really don't have a good hand when choosing their Innenminister. First a lawyer of RAF terrorists [wikipedia.org], now an advocate of torture...

Maybe following the old saying "takes a crook to find a crook".

Re:

[Capsaicin]

First a lawyer of RAF terrorists, now an advocate of torture...

OK, I can see how being an advocate of torture might reflect poorly on a person, but since when is the character of a lawyer to be determined by the character of that lawyer's clients? Does the driver of the prison van which takes the acused to the court room also share in the moral culpability of the accused?

Re:Political albatross

[saibot834]

Many civil rights activists in Germany are alarmed because of his proposals to stop the assumption of innocence when there is a chance to prevent acts of terrorism [1] [wikipedia.org]. Civil rights activist see him as an enemy of the German constitution, as he is a strong supporter of telecommunications data retention [wikipedia.org] and overall surveillance.
His views on invasion of Iraq was quite "normal"; his party, the CDU [wikipedia.org] was supporting it.

Re:

[Yokaze]

> Then last month Schäuble said guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work.

First, I do not support Mr. Schaeubles politicial position.

But: He did not said "guilty until proven innocent is the way criminal jurisprudence should work". He said, while the concept of innocent until proven guilty applies to jurisprudence, it does not for the excecutive. Well more correctly, he did not mention the first part, only the one the executive.

While this is certainly true, I feel a

Re:

[getha]

"Die Unschuldsvermutung heißt im Kern, dass wir lieber zehn Schuldige nicht bestrafen, als einen Unschuldigen bestrafen. Der Grundsatz kann nicht für die Gefahrenabwehr gelten. Wäre es richtig zu sagen: Lieber lasse ich zehn Anschläge passieren, als dass ich jemanden, der vielleicht keinen Anschlag begehen will, daran zu hindern versuche? Nach meiner Auffassung wäre das falsch."

What he says is basically this:

The innocence principle means that we would rather let 10 guilty men fre

In other news.

[Spazntwich]

Half of Microsoft is reported drowned in a torrent of schadenfreude.

Re:

[Wolfger]

Where's the tracker for that torrent?

Seems Silly.

[Erris]

I might as well boycot Debian because it's under the auspices of GWB. Is this Wolfgang Schaeuble guy trying to taking credit for or promote free software? I'd be so very happy with GWB for the same that I might forgive him for the invasion of Iraq. Back in reality, one has nothing to do with the other.

The best way to defeat your enemies is to make them into friends.

Re:Seems Silly.

[Opportunist]

There are some people I don't want as friends.

I can understand where this security-craze he's in comes from. Maybe I'd react similar if I was nearly shot. He's terrified. He sees terrorists and assassins everywhere, and he wants to protect himself and his country from them. It makes sense. And actually I do even feel pity for him.

Usually, though, such people seek professional help, not a political career. When you look at his recent decisions and law suggestions, it doesn't border anymore on paranoia, it's way beyond that border.

Re:

[headkase]

And boycotts are for withholding your money from companies that care about the bottom line. Linux is free and based on mutual benefit through cooperation so by not using every opportunity to refine the community in-general - such as the LinuxTag event - the boycott actually detracts from the very qualities that make open-source so nice.

Re:

[Opportunist]

The distraction already started with inviting a politician that's anything but interested in freedom and cooperation.

I mean, could you see GWB as the patron for the annual meeting of the world peace league?

Re:

[Opportunist]

Hey, one may dream, ok?

Re:

[Nutria]

world peace league

It's the pipe dream of the deluded do-gooder.

Re:

[that this is not und]

Heck. We already have a Just Us League.

Re:

[the_womble]

Linux is free

That free as in........not .......?

companies that care about the bottom line

If you look at the list of LinuxTag sponsors, they certainly do care about their botton lines.

Of course, the argument that the boycott will do more harm than good is valid.

If you refuse to deal with people like this, it rules out promoting Linux to most governments.

Re:

[M. Baranczak]

I might as well boycot Debian because it's under the auspices of GWB.

If Debian was "under the auspices of GWB" I sure as hell wouldn't use it. But it's not, so this is a moot point. The real question is, why the fuck is a Linux conference being sponsored by the Interior Ministry? And what's the nature of this sponsorship? There's a blurb on the linuxtag page, along with the Minister's cheerful mug, but it's in German. Does anybody know what's going on?

Re:

[fritsd]

He's not just a sponsor, he's the Schirmherr though I'm not sure what that means. In dutch, "beschermheer" is the kind of scary monster Larry Niven conjures up in his book Protector [wikipedia.org]. (Think: the Brennan-Monster). Sure sounds scary to me...

Weren't Protectors noted for their paranoia? (and looking like old men too.. hmm..)

Boycott schmoycott

[Anonymous Coward]

Those with a stake in open source software will attend, the rest doesn't matter. Schaeuble won't even be there, so there is no chance for a confrontation, which is probably a good thing, because Wolfgang Schaeuble is a red rag to many technology-minded people in Germany. He's the one pushing for the storing of all connection metadata, putting fingerprints in RFID passports and lots more which limits freedom just by making people feel watched all the time. How they didn't consider that when they made him patron of the LinuxTag is beyond me, but a boycott is just not going to happen.

To give you an idea who this is

[Opportunist]

Wolfgang Schäuble had the "bright" idea to have the law enforcement in Germany develop a trojan and infect the computer of suspects (and he's pushing strongly to make the requirements to use it rather lenient), and is also one of the main pushers behind the recent law that connections via phone or internet have to be recorded (not the content, "only" the location of the participant (in case of cellphones), endpoints and so on, to identify who talked with whom, when and from where).

I can well understand why people wouldn't want to be in the same convention with him. Actually, I can't figure out why anyone would want to have him near, unless following the old saying "keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer".

Re:To give you an idea who this is

[PopeRatzo]

Sometimes, despicable people will try to gain credibility by associating themselves with an honorable institution. We see it with radical Right Wingers in the US associating themselves with Jesus Christ even though old JC would probably have put his size 9 sandal up the crack of their asses.

Take this Falwell monster who just croaked. He had no problem rubbing bellies with death squads and dictators in Central and South America and apartheid leaders, and then turning around and acting holy at a prayer breakfast with Presidents who were too scared of his well-fed, smug and judgmental ass to throw him the fuck out like they should have. Did you see all the Republican presidential candidates falling over themselves trying to compare him to Ghandi and Martin Luther King?

I'm just guessing, but I've got a feeling that about 10 seconds after he died, he got the shock of his life when instead of seeing St. Peter, he met the dude with hooves. I'm hoping it was the South Park version of Satan, too.

If the Linux community boycotts LinuxTag, it's not going to hurt them one bit. In fact, standing up for what's right could make a lot of people take notice of them, especially with moral courage being in such short supply these days.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Falwell would have a fit when you compared him to Martin Luther King... Then again, who cares?

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

When Falwell died, and his brain stopped working, his consciousness ended. It ceased to be. If his thoughts were like music on a cassette tape, then the tape ended... and not just to silence, it stopped as if it never existed. No amount of faith in today's religion can change that, haha.

To be fair and to hold to the principles of science we simply cannot say that with certainty. What you just did is the exact same thing all the religious people do, i.e. you made an absolute claim in the absence of conclus

Re:

[nanosquid]

That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.

No, the scientifically honest position is to behave as if consciousness ends with physical death. That's because all other scientific hypotheses have been experimentally disproven. It's not certainty, but it's as close as rational humans ever get to certainty.

For example, it is conceivable that some fundamental properties of matter/energy on quantum (or lower) level play a part in t

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

That's because all other scientific hypotheses have been experimentally disproven.

Really? How so? You are implying that absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence. Our knowledge is simply too weak in the areas of sub-atomic structure of the Universe to be able to make such claims with certainty, yet you do. What you are exhibiting is a form of faith.

It's not certainty, but it's as close as rational humans ever get to certainty.

Could you again elaborate where does this in-depth understa

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

I think what you are doing, IgnoramusMaximus, is devising a hope for a theory based on the emotional rejection of the notion that you will cease to exist upon your death. It's not even a theory, it's the seed of a hope for a possibility that there might be some loophole that will allow you to continue to exist after you turn to dust.

I can understand the motivation, but we can't throw out our observations based upon a wish.

There are possibilities of interaction of matter/energy forms in extra-dimentional sp

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

I think what you are doing, IgnoramusMaximus, is devising a hope for a theory based on the emotional rejection of the notion that you will cease to exist upon your death. It's not even a theory, it's the seed of a hope for a possibility that there might be some loophole that will allow you to continue to exist after you turn to dust. I can understand the motivation, but we can't throw out our observations based upon a wish.

No, I simply insist on following the tenets of empirical science to their logical

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

What annoys me in particular is that some people latch onto whatever current models are being offered by science and go "Thats it! This time, for SURE, there is nothing more to it!". Which inevietably leads to creation of dogma, in no way different from that created by religious zealot

My friend, be very careful of buying into this (currently popular) meme that science has become "like religion", and thus has no basis in fact. It's an idea that's being spread by the very powerful in order to keep people ign

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

My friend, be very careful of buying into this (currently popular) meme that science has become "like religion", and thus has no basis in fact

That is not the problem. Science itself is not at fault here, but those who claim to adhere to scientific principles only to turn around and start making "scientific", absolute pronouncements based on flimsy or non-existant evidence are. Science is a system of gathering and processing knowledge and as such is, ultimately, immune to vagaries of politics and ideology,

Re:

[nanosquid]

Really? How so? You are implying that absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence.

No, I'm not.

What disturbs me is that many people today exibit the absolute certainty

I said "it's not certainty".

eqivalent to that of "knowing" that Newtonian physics is 100% correct and unchallengeable

When Newtonian physics was challenged, people accepted the new theory fairly quickly once there were experiments to support it.

while experimental evidence abounds that it is vastly incomplete

None of the areas in

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

When Newtonian physics was challenged, people accepted the new theory fairly quickly once there were experiments to support it.

This situation is not equivalent. I am not proposing that one particular alternative theory is correct, only that the present model is incomplete and thus not capable of explaining the phenomena in question. In the Newtonian model scenario I would be simply pointing out that there are some experiments which are unexplained by the model (as are many quantum effects at present in ou

Re:

[dvice_null]

> To be fair and to hold to the principles of science we simply cannot say that with certainty.

The same goes for unicorns, monsters and of course the famours, greator of all like, the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ter [wikipedia.org]

That is why the science world doesn't bulieve in anything, where we don't have scientific proofs. They COULD exist, but they don't, untill proven so.

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The same goes for unicorns, monsters and of course the famours, greator of all like, the Flying Spaghetti Monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons [wikipedia.org] ter

Incorrect. Unlike any of those we do have evidence that our understanding of quantum phenomena is vastly incomplete. We also know that quantum phenomena play a key role in electro-chemical reactions which in turn play a key role in the operation of neurons. So dismissing avenues of investigation out of hand is not equivalent here to dismis

Re:

[SiChemist]

So you would be an "insufficient data" sort of agnostic if I were to propose that an invisible 1000ft intelligent purple dinosaur visited people after they died and transported them to a world of sappy children's songs? In general, scientists view any extraordinary claim that has absolutely no supporting evidence with a great deal of skepticism. Most people who claim agnosticism in the same manner as yourself are really "weak atheists".

Re:

[jez9999]

Most people who claim agnosticism in the same manner as yourself are really "weak atheists".

No. Wikipedia defines that as someone who has "not thought about belief in gods; such an individual is implicitly without a belief in gods." That sounds a lot like someone who "believes there are no gods", which is not the same as an agnostic. We believe in the possibility of god(s). The word 'agnostic' is far better, and anyway when you use the word 'atheist', people always assume you're talking about explicit a

Re:

[SiChemist]

The Atheism entry in Wikipedia has this assertion:

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.
Found here [wikipedia.org]

By that criterion, my assertion is absolutely correct. However, that is not the source of my original comment. I based my opinion on some of the ideas presented by Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" which crysta

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

So you would be an "insufficient data" sort of agnostic if I were to propose that an invisible 1000ft intelligent purple dinosaur visited people after they died and transported them to a world of sappy children's songs?

Not at all. Unless you provide a method of verifying that supposition then it is simply a statement of faith.

What I am describing are possibilities of experimentally verifiable phenomena, within the framework of quantum physics models.

In general, scientists view any extraordinary claim tha

Re:

[SiChemist]

It's a purple dinosaur! :-)

That minor mistake aside, it sounds like your argument is simple quantum mechanical straw grasping. To say that since our knowledge of consciousness is incomplete, we can't make any pronouncements about the world we inhabit is nonsensical. We have exactly zero evidence that consciousness continues after death (and plenty of evidence that it doesn't) and yet you cling to the barest thread of possibility that everyone is wrong and that more research will prove you're immortal.

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

To say that since our knowledge of consciousness is incomplete, we can't make any pronouncements about the world we inhabit is nonsensical.

This is a strawan. The pronouncements you are making are not about "the world we inhabit" but specifically about the very nature of consciousness, knowledge of which even you admit is very incomplete. Or more precisely: "miniscule".

We have exactly zero evidence that consciousness continues after death (and plenty of evidence that it doesn't) and yet you cling to the ba

Re:

[jez9999]

Until more conclusive evidence comes in, i.e. for example we have managed to replicate a complete human brain in some other hardware and its functions and actions can be demonstrated to be precisely as those of a "living" one, you simply lack the empirical and theoretical foundations to make absolute claims of this nature.

Even then, you can never prove (as far as I can see) that your fake brain has 'true' sentience. Humans could have 'souls' which are undetectable with our senses, and cannot be created art

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Even then, you can never prove (as far as I can see) that your fake brain has 'true' sentience. Humans could have 'souls' which are undetectable with our senses, and cannot be created artificially. COULD.

Again, unless someone constructs a theoretical framework and a set of tests to run to determine if that is so, then such a claim would no longer be sicence but faith. What I described can be tested and we do know that our knowledge of quantum phenomena is woefully incomplete. It is simply too early in thi

Re:

[jez9999]

Are we not talking about belief in the supernatural here? How would such models help with that question? They might predict the natural universe with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't touch the supernatural universe (if any).

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Are we not talking about belief in the supernatural here? How would such models help with that question? They might predict the natural universe with 100% accuracy, but that doesn't touch the supernatural universe (if any).

Not at all. If it can be tested and models can be constructed, it by definition ceases to be "supernatural". What it could be called is "extra-dimentional" as in taking place in dimentions outside of the "three plus time" vectors of space-time we are so familiar with. The same is applic

Re:

[jez9999]

But I don't really see how you can get to a point where, no matter how sophisticated the model, you can't say, "but God might still exist."

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

But I don't really see how you can get to a point where, no matter how sophisticated the model, you can't say, "but God might still exist."

The problem I see is with my using the word "Agnostic". The definition of which is forced upon us by Theists, rather then flowing from the logical conlusions of science. By saying "Agnostic" I do not mean "in respect to exsitence of God" exclusively, but also in respect to other aspects of our existence which the Theists have appropriated. In this particular case we ar

Re:

[Capsaicin]

That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.

The problem with this is that it privileges the concept 'God' over 'Zorsdix' or any other of the inifite possible postulated ideas, whose corporeal existence lacks any supporting evidence. In fact the honest scientific position is simply to recognise that the concept of 'God' makes no more sense than the idea that the room you are sitting in is filled with undetectable flying fish

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

The problem with this is that it privileges the concept 'God' over 'Zorsdix' or any other of the inifite possible postulated ideas, whose corporeal existence lacks any supporting evidence. In fact the honest scientific position is simply to recognise that the concept of 'God' makes no more sense than the idea that the room you are sitting in is filled with undetectable flying fish (ie both are logically possible, but lack empirical foundation). Since there is zero evidence for either proposition, from a sci

Re:

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Well, anything is possible, I suppose, but I don't think it's being dishonest to suggest that it's worth zero time whatsoever investigating, say, perpetual engines or time machines. There's nothing unscientific about being an atheist, as opposed to a mere agnostic, regarding those subjects.

I see the "strong" Atheists as those believers in absolute certainty of 100% accuracy of Newtonian physics, before Einstein came along. The situation is very analogous. Even though unexplainable by the Newtonian model e

Some details

[tmk]

It was not the idea of Schaeuble - he does not know a thing about computers. The idea comes from the Federal police in Germany, the "Bundeskriminalamt".

The Intelligence service "Verfassungsschutz" in Germany have the legal authority to search computers online yet - but they lack the technical ability. Some details about online searches leaked into the public.

One time they tried to infect a suspects PC with a Trojan on a CD-ROM. Unfortunately they distributed to many of the CDs until the eavesdropping

Trojan on CD-ROM

[cpghost]

One time they tried to infect a suspects PC with a Trojan on a CD-ROM.

What's wrong with distributing genuine Windows XP install media?

Yep. That makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no point being politically active if the target of your activism probably won't even notice. May as well just put up with it and get on with your life.

Wrong.

Anyone with money invested in the event will notice, and I'm sure the backlash from the grass roots users will convince them they should rethink their associations in future. seeing they are the people with the money, they are the only people who can make the Minister notice.

Figures in power are directly unreachable to the common man, but we can impact on them indirectly.

From the linux community to the interior minister:
Nuts!

Re:

[messner_007]

I don't want to show up on such an event. I am visiting LinuxTag ever year. I always come with my car: 1000 km in one way. But I love it. It used to be first class event.

This year, I wont come. People say, "don't be disturbed by this shithead". Behave as normally. But this wont go for me. When something stinks, then it stinks. You can wear very nice shoes, good trouses and beutifull tie. But when your shirt stinks, you feel miserablly.

And this guy stinks.

TFA: Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, Federal Minist

Oh wait...

[Howitzer86]

I went ahead and read about this guy and his party. My first thought was "hey, he doesn't seem to bad".

My second thought was, "Oh wait, I'm in America, I've been desensitized."

Re:

[Yokaze]

> Christian Democratic Union [...] How f'd up is that [...] at least I don't have to worry about that kind of crap here

Contrary to the US, in Germany you can be elected to the most powerful office, without having to continously profess ones faith. In Germany 40-50% are agnostic/atheists compared to the U.S, where there are 3-9%.

Re:

[VON-MAN]

The slashdot community acts as if all the other denizens of the planet are other slashdotters.

This might come as a shock for you...

The slashdot community _consists_ of other denizens of the planet. So when German held Linuxtag is in the news, German, and Belgium, and French, and Swiss, and Czech, and Danish, and Dutch, Linux using slashdotters with an interest in politics at least feel entitled to an opinion.

Now that's all that stuff you see around your post.

Wrong reaction

[ericferris]

That's just a politician who wants to generate PR by attending an event that contains lots of buzzwords ("this Linux thingy and these computers and technology, that's trendy, let's attend"). But he doesn't own the LinuxTag. By staging a boycott, the German OSS crowd gives him a de facto ownership of the event.

Re:

[Opportunist]

What's it good for if you "own" an event and nobody shows up? It's about the worst you can do to a politician, avoid an event not despite him being there but BECAUSE. Can you see the headlines of next day's news? People avoiding an event they've been waiting for for a year, just because a certain politician was there? The antipathy towards this person being even stronger than their love for their hobby?

With a bit of luck, he'll even become unbearable for his party. And that can only be beneficial for German

Re:

[ericferris]

Hey, I'm sympathetic to the protesters. Once, I was manning a stand at a computer show, and I walked out when the mayor of the city showed up among cameras and flashes. I waiting for him to be gone. But notice that I ignored him, I didn't gve him control of the whole show. So I understand the motives, but I do believe that the stategy is misguided. For the boycott to be successful, it will have to be complete. We'll see. If the boycott is not complete, LinuxTag will be Schaeuble's event, And if it fails,

Re:Wrong reaction

[cp.tar]

Actually, you just gave me an idea...

What about making a game out of it?
Avoid the Moron, it should be called.
Post lookouts for him; then, when he arrives, make sure there's nobody within 10 metres from him.
When he approaches a stand, everyone clears; who cannot clear, hides.
Hell, put up "Closed due to moron proximity" signs on stands when he approaches.

And make sure it's all recorded.

Re:

[cp.tar]

Agreed.

'Moron' was just a placeholder word I used to represent a general feeling/attitude; people attending LinuxTag will probably think of better texts. They still have a week or so... I'd probably go with a picture of his face, crossed with a red line or two, and the inscription 'Firewalled.'

But I don't speak German, so I couldn't suggest anything really good.

P.S. Politics is the one area where I assume malice by default. Stupidity is in the hands of voters; politicians themselves are malicious.

Re:

[Bloke down the pub]

What's it good for if you "own" an event and nobody shows up?

He may own it, but the protesters pwn it. OMG, etc.

good reaction

[someone1234]

The real owners of LinuxTag should have thought it before.
They still can remedy the situation, cancel the guy's invitation :)

I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[bursch-X]

How would you like it to hear stuff like:

This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!
Or BigBrother 2007, it can't be evil, it's all open source!

I don't want this fucker (Schäuble) to be associated with anything FOSS.

Re:I'd still boycott it to set a sign.

[zappepcs]

I don't know if it's just me, but lately there seem to be a lot of people around the world that are making their voices heard either via the Internet or boycotts etc. This is nothing but a good thing, and I hope that the German people are able to send a message loud enough to be heard by all concerned.

Mr Orwell's Big Brother and F/OSS really don't need to be friends...

Re:

[LWATCDR]

Wouldn't it be better to show up and protest him there? Ask him uncomfortable questions and such?
Frankly the people coming from other nations probably don't know anything about him and this would be a good way to educate him and get it into the world press.
Guest from outside Germany will most likely think that the FOSS community in Germany is shrinking.

Re:

[kestasjk]

I'd rather not have any software monitor me, but if I was going to have a piece of software monitor me I'd rather I was able to check out its source and see exactly what is being monitored that just have a black box and have to take the word of the authors.

You have to anyway

[Opportunist]

Unless a machine is running under your directions, you have to take the word of the person owning or running it. Even if you can see the source, you have no way to determine whether it's the source of the program running. So what difference does it make? They could well show you one source and have a completely different binary running.

Yes, I do not trust our politicians.

Re:

[bky1701]

...More reason to want FOSS to have nothing to do with BB; it may make some feel somewhat better about it. If someone is going to spy on people, I don't want those spied on to be comforted in the fact it's "open source"; they should never be comforted by anything relating to Big Bother.

Re:

[Jeff DeMaagd]

More reason to want FOSS to have nothing to do with BB

I think that misses the point. Once you put out an idea, you cannot control what others do with it. You can try to be as far as you want from your opponent, whether you give away or sell your idea or product, you lose control of how it is used and for what it is used. In some ways, GPL does force changes to be released (assuming it's from an organization in a country that respects copyright laws), but that usually doesn't work for custom userland soft

Re:

[cpghost]

I'd rather not have any software monitor me

Well, I would, but only if it's the kind of software that saves lives. Like most programmers, I'm working at night and alone. Should I get a heart attack or stroke, I'd highly appreciate it if monitoring software were to set off some alarm or calls 911.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Can we agree on "if software monitors me, I get to decide when and what"?

Re:

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!
Or BigBrother 2007, it can't be evil, it's all open source!

It sure puts a whole new spin on "Digital Rights Management," doesn't it.

Re:

[Opportunist]

That's Digital Consumer Enablement for you. C'mon, do them the favor, I'm pretty sure they had to spend a small fortune for that streamlined, spiffy new name.

No restriction on field of use

[jmorris42]

> This surveillance camera and its motion detector was brought to you by Linux!

Either you believe in NO restriction on field of use or you don't. Remember, you can use FOSS to build puppy mulchers. It is if course perfectly fine to object to puppy mulchers, and anyone who actually mulches a puppy but whether the machine runs Linux, BSD or Windows shouldn't matter. Except if it has some neato realtime hacks in the control mech, they use Linux and the manufacturer refuses to give up the patches. But if

Re:

[Hognoxious]

Remember, you can use FOSS to build puppy mulchers.

I'd like a people who allow their dogs to shit in the street mulcher. And with open source I can adapt a puppy mulcher. Thanks, FOSS!

It's Not "SchaeubleTag"

[Doc Ruby]

if the community boycotts LinuxTag, it's the open source software that will be hit the hardest, and that Schaeuble probably won't even notice

That sounds like exactly the reason Schaeuble is a bad sponsor for the event. And exactly what people of conscience do, that corporations don't - one of the crucial differences between Linux and other OS'es, like OSX and Windows.

And it sounds like it's LinuxTag which should notice their community rebelling, not their pet Minister who doesn't care at all about either of them.

German Linux Community?

[robot_lords_of_tokyo]

Who is speaking for me again? This is not a boycott from the "German Linux Community", it's a boycott by people that don't agree with his political policies. That's ok, but don't use that label. Schäuble is the minister of the interior, which is exactly the person that should be involved in this (that is, the person holding that position). Sure he's a dick, but he is the minister of the interior. If you don't like his policies, just vote next time.

Re:

[Daniel Phillips]

Schäuble is the minister of the interior, which is exactly the person that should be involved in this (that is, the person holding that position). Sure he's a dick, but he is the minister of the interior. If you don't like his policies, just vote next time.

I would say this is a kind of voting.

Re:German Linux Community?

[A beautiful mind]

Sadly too many people think that all there is to a representative democracy is to vote once every four years and then the government can do whatever it likes without any repecussions.

It might have to do with the language

[Opportunist]

The German translation of casting a vote would be "Stimme abgeben". Which can be retranslated as "giving up your voice".

Re:German Linux Community?

[cpghost]

If you don't like his policies, just vote next time.

What for? His predecessor from the other side of the political spectrum, Otto Schily, was just as bad as Wolfgang Schaeuble.

In theory, you're right, but in the prevalent climate of fear since 9/11 and the massive shift away from civil rights towards security, monitoring, using confessions extracted through torture by foreign governments, ethnic profiling ("Rasterfahndung")... there ain't much you can do about it anyway. The only party in Germany that's quite skeptical of all this was the FDP (they had a minister who resigned over this when they were still in power; though it was before 9/11), but even they finally caved in to the security doctrine and are just paying dishonest lip service w.r.t. civil rights.

So voting yes, but there's no real political alternative to pick from. Boycotting LinuxTag is the only way for some people to show that they disapprove of all this. It's not LinuxTag's fault however, just an unfortunate mishap and PR fiasco.

Re:

[cpghost]

Well, yes, somewhat creative, but the last "Rasterfahndung" was definitely ethnic profiling, and was later struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on behalf of a Moroccan student, whose constitutional complaint was financially backed by the general student organization ASTA.

Here a bit of background...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Minister of Interior has traditionally been the "Schirmherr" (a sort of prominent figurehead, it's mostly a symbolic role) of Linuxtag. However, the current Minister of Interior has been furthering some pretty crazy ideas and is considered by many to be a threat to constitutional freedoms. For example, he strongly advocates data retention and what he calls "online search and seizure" which basically amounts to government agents hacking into private computers without noticing the owner to look for material that is illegal per se or planning material for illegal operations. In addition he has mentioned in an interview that "innocent until proven guilty" should not apply in certain situations.

This is why a lot of people think that he shouldn't be in a figurehead position of Linuxtag since his values are opposed to what Linuxtag stands for (or should stand for).

Re:

[Kjella]

In addition he has mentioned in an interview that "innocent until proven guilty" should not apply in certain situations.

Sounds a lot like Gonzales/GWB that think habeas corpus is optional, partuiarly for suspected enemy combatants. Oh yes, they like to drop the suspected bit because "enemy combatants" that's not you and me. "Suspected enemy combatants" on the other hand, that could be you and me who has been mis-identified.

For being the socalled "free world", we sure come up with a lot of crap. Being slight

LinuxDay

[matt me]

Is there a LinuxDay event anywhere?

Why shouldn't Wolfgang Schaeuble be the chiefgeek?

[owidder]

See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/05 /chiefgeek_wolfg.html [typepad.com] Bye, Oliver

Logic

[toolz]

Oh, I can so see the logic of this - instead of attending a community event in huge numbers and making your voices heard, you boycott the event and stay away, so that no one can hear you.

Seems logical to me.

LinuxTag doesn't elect the Minister (who automatically becomes the patron of the event, by virtue of his position) - the citizens do. Why punish LinuxTag for something they have no control over? They can't very well dump a patronship by a government ministry just because the *current* minister is a jerk.

Re:

[Opportunist]

They can't? Hello? When I hold a convention, I get to choose the partron. It would actually be a political statement that the community would understand and support.

Re:

[toolz]

Right. So I boycott open source because I don't like Eric Raymond? (No offence, ESR - just a name I picked out of the hat)

The ministry has been very supportive of the event for years, and rejecting their support because the minister they report to right now (by virtue of his being elected) is a jerk?

Right. That's the way to do it.

Sheesh.

The only statement the community would make here is that it is to immature to handle the real world, where such things *do* happen.

e.g. let's take Bush.

Or rather, let's not.

Re:

[Opportunist]

I can't remember the last time I elected a minister.

you can't avoid the politics

[nanosquid]

Well, LinuxTag has a choice: they can continue under the auspices of Schauble, or they can disassociate themselves from him. Either choice makes a political statement.

In general, Schauble seems to be a persona non grata to many people, and the smart thing would have been to avoid the controversy by choosing someone else in the first place.

Why is this Schaeuble guy such a bad choice?

[Crouty]

I suppose almost noone from countries other than Germany know about Wolfgang Schaeuble, his policy and what he stands for. But for German nerds it's bad news and stuff that matters. Among many other law and order topics he is trying to push forward he tries to get a law passed that would allow prosecuters to hack private computers.

That could possibly be acceptable if police hackers would need a proper warrant, the number of infilitrations was very low, the general public would get to know about these numbers and last but not least the observed subject would be informed afterwards. Experience with telephone wiretapping in Germany tells us that none of these democratic requirements are taken seriously.

Additionally, there are reserveations against the software that would be used as it is sure to open security holes for other malware.

This is basically what Wolfgang Schaeuble stands for among the German linux community and I can absolutely understand that many fellow nerds do not want to support a LinuxTag in any way that is somehow associated with Schaeuble. I for one don't welcome our new trojan dropping overlord.

Re:

[fritsd]

Could you compare Schäuble to U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch? Then, the U.S. slashdotters have a point of reference. I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison (so, no offence), but I though Hatch also liked that kind of surveillance laws.

Imagine Orrin Hatch as the patron (or Protector) of the Open Source Business Conference.

Would be interesting to read the transcript of his speech!

logo resemblance

[jimstapleton]

How does a rotting zombie-duck resemble tux?

What gives you the idea that he was?

[Opportunist]

I'd already count it as a sign of improvement if he got at least in touch with reality. Personally, I'd rather see this as a weak attempt to polish his rather damaged goodwill with people who don't share his vision of removing every bit of freedom people fought and suffered for in the last century to gain some imaginary security.

Maybe he'll get the hint when people, who he wants to impress by showing off how "freedom" oriented and modern he is, don't show up and turn their collective backs to him. Though I

Why does "free" have to have two meanings?

[Opportunist]

Maybe I'll live to see the day when people realize the difference and that the freedom of OSS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with beer... but I better not hold my breath.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Maybe I'll live to see the day when people realize the difference and that the freedom of OSS doesn't necessarily have anything to do with beer... but I better not hold my breath.

He's probably referring to the seemingly large correlation (or, at least, noisy overlap) between the FOSS crowd and the information-(or, at least the music and movies I want)-wants-to-be-free crowd.

Ask RMS

[ClosedSource]

He's the one who decided to use the word "free" in a anthropomorphic way.

Re:

[murple]

Assuming the Krauts have TV ads)?

We don't even have this newfangled thing you call TV.