07.28.10
British Computer Society (BCS) Still Serves Agenda of Large Multinationals
Summary: The BCS has moved beyond public policy misrepresentation and is now spreading FUD about “Open Source”
SEVERAL months ago we acquired and assembled yet more proof to show that IEEE serves not the interests of people; rather, it promotes the agenda of large corporations [1, 2], including their monopolies on software. Over the past few months we have also accumulated evidence (especially from Simon Phipps although sometimes backed by Glyn Moody, a fellow Brit) to show that BCS should not necessarily be seen as a friend of the British public [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The latest example of this comes in the form of FUD against Free(dom) software, which is rebutted thusly:
An article published by the BCS was brought to my attention, and it was full of such glaring omissions and implicit attacks on free software that it had to be dealt with. initially written as a comment, it quickly extended way beyond the length of the original article…
i am very confused. the BCS is supposed to be a reputable organisation, yet this article – every paragraph – is complete horse-shit. i thought about saying otherwise, so that the chances of this comment not being censored are reduced, but i cannot think of any other words to choose which express clearly enough what _really_ needs to be said.
Notice that the BCS also goes along with the lie that "commercial" is opposite of "Open Source".
Thanks to Advogato for pointing this out and posting a very detailed rebuttal. For the BCS, this is just the latest among many PR blunders so far this year (for background see the links we gave and scroll down to BCS EGM). If nobody points out these issues, nothing will improve. █
David Evans said,
July 30, 2010 at 8:30 am
I work for BCS, and wanted to respond to some points in your post. The most important thing to say is that this article you refer to does not represent the position of BCS, but of the author. BCS takes articles submitted by members and from other sources, and while our editorial process puts some checks in place, we do not censor based on the author’s opinion conflicting with the organisation’s or with other members.
In this particular case, I can understand why this has caused alarm in some quarters – and we have already received some offers of articles putting different opinions, which we are very keen to publish. We also allow (in fact, encourage!) comments on our articles, and while we have edited to remove some expletives (as per our guidelines) we have welcomed alternative views there. I’m distressed that you think we are pushing a corporate view point or any other against the public interest – and we will be taking a look at our processes and the way they were implemented in this case to see if there are any lessons to learn.
We hope to ensure that BCS can be home to IT professionals with a very diverse range of backgrounds and viewpoints, and would look to support and encourage those with passionate views about open source and many other topics as much as we can. We’re sorry if we have inadvertently given another impression.