01.01.20
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software at 11:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Faking of “openness” in the LMS space; the case study [pun intended] of Latitude Learning
Latitude Learning deserves a lesson [pun intended] on the cost of faking “openness”. It has become a major epidemic — if not a scam/ploy — that the Linux Foundation profits handsomely from. Our reader Marcia did a top class [pun intended] job getting Latitude Learning to actually admit they had been faking it for a decade while getting away with it. We’ll hand it over to her as she can explain it clearly, based on deep understanding of these matters (I myself installed and configured Moodle several times before; I even wrote detailed documentation, but no idea about Latitude).
In 2007, Latitude announced Open Source [PDF]:
“In 2017, I evaluated and worked as PM on a LMS migration gig — moving from Moodle and Totara to another solution.”In 2010, Latitude announced their Open Source LMS — and an award in late 2010. To quote: “Latitude Learning, provider of the industry leading open-source learning management system (LMS) LatitudeLearning.com and the Chrysler Group, one of the world’s leading automotive companies, today announced they are bronze award winners for Best Use of Web 2.0 Tools for Learning from Brandon Hall Research. The award was presented at Brandon Hall’s DevLearn | 10 conference…”
In 2011, Latitude announced “platform” — a “[b]uilt on an open-source platform” (see bottom part about the company, “About Latitude Learning”).
To quote with further context: “Built on an open-source platform, the LatitudeLearning.com LMS provides the opportunity for training companies to open a world of new opportunities. Please go to www.latitudelearning.com for additional information.”
“Granted, that the current statements of platform, may be valid, the question remains, how much has Latitude taken from our community without giving back?”In 2017, I evaluated and worked as PM on a LMS migration gig — moving from Moodle and Totara to another solution. Evaluation of proprietary and non-proprietary options (over a dozen) was performed. Wanted to stay non-proprietary — however, Latitude not only failed in being open source as they claimed but also requested to dump a directory dump every night on a FTP and couldn’t understand my security/privacy concerns regarding such a lack of “integration” on their part- – claiming other customers had no problem with it.
At that point, we referred to the sales staff as “latitude with attitude”.
My problem with their earlier claims of open source, is that I confirmed they were not, were never and as a person who made a living doing Moodle migrations/upgrades and implementations, I actually felt the community was “robbed”. Robbed of potential clients, robbed of community growth, robbed of any possible gigs. By the false representation of being open source, we were, as a community robbed and just compensation should be sought.
That’s just my honest opinion.
Granted, that the current statements of platform, may be valid, the question remains, how much has Latitude taken from our community without giving back?
[2010 Press Release]
2013: regarding cloud platform.
“However, there was a curious option for LMS Branch that offered a copy of the source code. Of course, at cost.”Sure. Open Source on cloud doesn’t require distribution, But Latitude announced in 2007 — far before the platform/cloud exemption was even realised.
“Historically, LMS has really only been available to Fortune 500 and Global 1,000 companies due to the high cost of implementation,” explains Jeff Walter, CEO, Latitude Learning. Latitude Learning offers a flexible and configurable LMS and an open-source LMS for professional training companies, OEMs and franchisers. “Over the last 5 years cloud-based LMS have emerged. These cloud-based systems have allowed the cost of LMS entry to drop dramatically, giving moderate and small sized companies the ability to take advantage of these systems…”
2017: Images below help in confirming that Latitude is NOT Open Source… However, there was a curious option for LMS Branch that offered a copy of the source code. Of course, at cost.
[Here we go with evidence]
Bigger/full image
Bigger/full image
Bigger/full image
All I want is a fair playing ground without these companies fashionably claiming to be Open Source — robbing our community is many ways.
As we have seen with VMware, the SFC has no teeth. In fact, the lawyer for VMware apparently laughed at SFC’s “friendly” request to cease and desist to which the VMware attorney said to the effect: what are you going to do about it — according to Karen Sandler ScALE 15x Law track happy hour in 2016 Pasadena, CA.
“Needless to say, we did not select Latitude for many reasons. The Open Source misrepresentation was definitely one.”As a “potential victim” here of the misrepresentation, I could go after Latitude. However, I don’t have a team of legal reps I can pay to go to court.
Had I realised this misrepresentation prior to the cloud offering, I would have had more ground to stand on.
Needless to say, we did not select Latitude for many reasons. The Open Source misrepresentation was definitely one. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 10:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Big mother (or Big Brother) is watching… everything you say
Summary: We’re back to the same old conundrum: what is more toxic? Oppressive censorship (of truth)? Or the expression of ‘unwanted’ speech?
LWN has just (about 2 hours ago) removed the paywall from this article entitled “A year-end wrap-up from LWN”. I couldn’t help but notice this rather disturbing paragraph from the editor himself (Jonathan Corbet). About the Linux Foundation‘s code of conduct (CoC) it says this: “Did somebody try to test out the kernel’s code-of-conduct as predicted? As of November 30, there had been no code-of-conduct events in the last three months, and only minor events before. That prediction, happily, has not worked out. Thus far, it seems that the code of conduct may actually have succeeded in making the kernel community a nicer place without the need for any serious enforcement efforts.”
Putting aside the recent ban of a “MAGA” hat-wearing person (banned from Kubecon), let’s examine closely what the above actually means. We’re supposed to count the CoC as an achievement not because it’s actually being used but because people are afraid of it — they’re afraid to speak out. Those are the classic hallmarks of authoritarian regimes. Hardly an accomplishment!
An anonymous Debian community site wrote this yesterday (it’s already in our Daily Links by the way). We’ll reproduce a portion below again, for those who aren’t keeping abreast of Daily Links:
Over the past twelve months, concerned developers have spoken out publicly about blackmail in Debian. It has been referred to as analogous to Thought Reform, the brainwashing programs of the totalitarian Chinese communist state and many former eastern European communist dictatorships.
The regime operating this program are the Debian Account Managers, comprising Enrico Zini, Joerg Jaspert and Jonathan Wiltshire.
Using the public complaints about the process, let’s break it down into easy steps. Like Zini, Jaspert and Wiltshire did at Christmas 2018, you could make this into a holiday project and start your own regime during a long weekend.
Begin with the conclusion
Normally, an expulsion or imprisonment comes at the end of an inquiry or investigation. In a blackmail program, the process is reversed.
In Debian’s case, this involves removing somebody from the Debian keyring. This is something that is relatively easy for Zini, Joerg and Wiltshire to do using their position in the project.
Add something menacing
For some developers, simply removing them from the keyring can cause immediate problems with their employment as they can no longer upload packages to Debian if they are not included in the Debian keyring. Without saying any more, Zini, Joerg and Jaspert now have the victim’s full attention.
This is about Debian, where there seems to be a(n anti) “free speech” cabal that gags people for questionable reasons; it’s to do with Google money, politics and social justice causes. In the case of the Linux Foundation it’s somewhat worse because the speech policing is done by people who do not use Linux. Sure, they run “Linux Foundation” and “Linux dot com” and so on. But they don’t even use GNU/Linux; they don’t understand the users and the community, only corporate agenda (of corporate sponsors). So they’re in effect like a Ford CEO who drives a Japanese car around, insisting even in public that it is superior. They tell us free speech is dangerous and are adamant — even eager — to suppress any views that don’t suit their career goals. This is a recipe for total chaos; we already saw what that did to the FSF. Watch closely the LWN comment (on the above article) which says: “Recently I received issue 35 of the FSF Bulletin. (Not yet available at https://www.fsf.org/bulletin .) My copy has already been recycled but it struck me Stallman wasn’t mentioned even once. Surreal.”
If FSF did this consciously, what does that say about today’s FSF? As we said months ago, several times in fact, there cannot be software freedom without freedom of speech; those two principles are closely intertwined. It has been reported and proven that the FSF even censors its mailing lists (e.g. messages in support of Stallman!). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF at 8:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Free Software Foundation board one month after 3 people left
Summary: Most reasonable way for the FSF to restore confidence among longterm members? Probably taking practical steps to show respect for the FSF’s founder, addressing if not tackling a perceptual GNU discord
BAD technology is creeping in and spreading wide. What defines “bad”? Well, that depends. But many would objectively agree that technology that makes people unhappy or oppresses people (for some so-called ‘master’) is a bad thing. Proprietary software generally makes these things miles worse because there’s usually no way to confront the malice or reduce the level of subjugation.
“The way I see it, the FSF needs Stallman more than he needs the FSF, albeit as chief of the GNU project it would be ideal for both to rejoin, coming together again as one.”Richard Stallman is apparently recognising that Free software alone is insufficient and growing threats (or problems) exist. Hours ago he alluded to the whole Clown Computing thing in an E-mail to me. The mail itself is mostly private, but it seems evident that Stallman has been keeping up with the constantly-evolving nature of threats. In last year’s public talk he also brought these up on occasions.
The way I see it, the FSF needs Stallman more than he needs the FSF, albeit as chief of the GNU project it would be ideal for both to rejoin, coming together again as one. That might also help appease and reduce supposed ‘confusion’ among his vocal critics at GNU (the same group that keeps issuing public letters/petitions). Mr. Kuhn, who had authored a Stallman-hostile press release, left the Board, so causes for friction may have since there been (self?) removed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF at 1:18 pm by Guest Editorial Team
By Ted MacReilly
Do members matter? Does the billionaires-owned media decide whether to ‘cancel’ the founder of the FSF?
Summary: “Prove that you care about the Mission of the FSF — And DEFEND SOFTWARE FREEDOM.”
It’s a new decade for the Free Software Foundation, whether you find it off to a hopeful start or not. And just like in The Office, this decade the FSF has two co-managing, sort-of presidents. Well, whatever.
The two surest signs that members don’t matter to the FSF are the failed fundraiser, and the fact that Stallman isn’t in office. Why say this outrageous thing? Because it’s technically true, of course.
Theoretically, members matter a lot. And in practice, members may have influence sometimes. But you can probably tell when they do. When you fork over money to support the FSF, you don’t get any voting privileges with that membership. Maybe you shouldn’t, either — if anybody can just buy their own importance, what’s to stop everybody at Microsoft, or IBM from becoming members and… sorry, we’re getting ahead of things here.
“When you fork over money to support the FSF, you don’t get any voting privileges with that membership.”Whether you’re a corporation buying your way in, or a single person fooling yourself into thinking your opinion automatically matters (it does, but to whom?) isn’t the proof in the results?
Most members do not want Stallman gone, and enough people are unhappy enough now that Stallman has stepped down that the FSF has lost what I figure amounts to tens of thousands of dollars. That’s a pretty big screwup and the good news is, that it’s a screwup the FSF can fix — if members really matter.
Again, maybe it’s better that members can’t vote. The Open Source Initiative, an organization that used to at least feign to care about freedom or openness (or whatever it is they promote) made a change years ago where they decided to be more member-oriented. In my opinion, they’ve only gotten more cloyingly corporate and less “open”/Apple-y/developery since they allowed sponsors to take over more of their operation — Molly de Blanc even works there, and I can’t really tell the difference between GNOME and Microsoft anymore.
When did all these things become the same company anyway? When your operating system is controlled by GitHub+Microsoft+OIN+Red Hat+IBM, Debian+Mollamby+GNOME+OSI, Apple and SUSE+SAP, maybe it really is unfair to call it “GNU+Linux” anymore. Out of recognition, we should at least call it “GNU+Linux+Bloodthirsty monopolistic corporations.”
“…maybe it really is unfair to call it “GNU+Linux” anymore.”The point is, if you want to know who had a GREAT 2019, it’s IBM and Microsoft. They had the biggest coups in the entire history of their partnership. Not only have they taken over Free software, but the government is paying them extra! To quote the Halloween documents, it’s nothing but “Blue Sky” from now on.
If you’re a supporter of Free software though, it really sucks to be you. And of course we want the FSF to do something about it, but we know that all you’ve said over the past 5 to 10 years hasn’t really changed anything the FSF does day-to-day or year-to-year. We are powerless, and being told the FSF fights for our freedom.
I have worked tirelessly to try to figure out what we can do about this. There’s always the way things work on paper, and how they work in press releases, but you know programmers and techies, they want to know how things Really work. If the Halloween documents (some of which are hosted on gnu.org) are factual, then Microsoft has spent decades reverse-engineering organizations like the FSF to try to figure out how to exploit them. It figured out how to exploit the GPL, forcing them to create a patched version (GPL3.)
“If the Halloween documents (some of which are hosted on gnu.org) are factual, then Microsoft has spent decades reverse-engineering organizations like the FSF to try to figure out how to exploit them. It figured out how to exploit the GPL, forcing them to create a patched version (GPL3.)”If we want to compete with the corporations exploiting and trying to take over the FSF, we may have to reverse engineer the organisational processes as well.
(Or at least find accurate, easy-to-understand documentation… haha, gotcha.)
It’s a common assumption to assume the president has more power than they really do. We can logically assume Stallman had some, or there would be no advantage to ousting him in the first place. Now the FSF has a sort of chimera-like leadership, between a Suit who wants “unity” (find a historical example of “unity” that didn’t favor a faction closer to the leadership, they’re quite rare — Sullivan’s “unity” likely just means a shift in authority and the rest of his messaging isn’t anything to be hopeful about) and a Stallman-like hippie who nonetheless is so steeped in corporate culture that it can take veritable ages to guide him back to the land of the living.
Rhetorically, and historically, the FSF is against the worst parts of all this — that’s why we like them! If you look past rhetoric towards results however, the FSF continues to cede to corporate power. What about Puri.sm? When I think of what future the FSF might have, I think RYF is a very good idea; it’s something we need. I think the track record for RYF is good. But is Puri.sm a scam or not? Is IBM taking over the GNU system or not? Is the mailing list being censored or not?
“Too many signs of corruption remain present, as the FSF tries to double-down on old messaging against a backdrop of unconvincing sincerity and a conspicuously missing single-person-presidency.”Who do you think these guys answer to — you? They may reply, but if your questions aren’t really answered then they must know they don’t owe you anything — not even the truth in some instances, and they certainly don’t answer to you. Is this how the FSF fights for your freedom?
Too many signs of corruption remain present, as the FSF tries to double-down on old messaging against a backdrop of unconvincing sincerity and a conspicuously missing single-person-presidency.
If members had a say at all, they MIGHT manage to fix this!
SO WHO HAS THE REAL SAY here?
In the near future, we might find out that the failed fundraiser gets their attention and forces the FSF to care not just in a “we care, really!” sort of way, but in a “we have to do something different to get our numbers back up” kind of way.
Or they might just fall back on their very large, anonymous nest egg which they received before all this horror and atrocity started last year.
Or they might decide “screw associate members, let’s just do more for our corporate sponsors.”
I’m told that finance-wise, members (rather than sponsors) make up the largest part of the pie. But is that still true with this failed annual fundraiser?
“I’m told that finance-wise, members (rather than sponsors) make up the largest part of the pie. But is that still true with this failed annual fundraiser?”I admit to not caring about the numbers, at least not compared to the actions, achievements and goals of the FSF. I care about software freedom, I care about a degree of autonomy from monopolies without which software freedom is largely hypothetical — I care about the FSF fighting for us. The numbers could be sky-high, but if our freedom is suffering and nothing is being done about it, the budget is irrelevant to me.
I realise I’m wandering around a bit, but we’ve ruled out significant power by the president (as he’s not in office) and we’ve ruled out significant power by the members (whose only real “vote” is to abstain from funding. And that was never very relevant before this year.)
Minus the president, minus the members, what’s left is:
- Corporate sponsors
- The board
- Corporate moles
I threw that last one in just to be thorough. We (as Free software advocates) have sympathisers in monopolistic corporations. They may likewise have corporate/monopoly sympathisers in our organisations, they certainly did not long ago.
We know the board has most of the voting power, by charter and by process of elimination.
We know the corporate sponsors have de facto power, as 2019 was like Year-Round-Christmas for monopolies who wanted to take software that’s free for everyone and make it “more free for some than others.” You can almost hear the cynical echo of Ballmer’s “Developers! Developers! Developers!” in the distance.
“You can almost hear the cynical echo of Ballmer’s “Developers! Developers! Developers!” in the distance.”We can’t get anything from the corporate sponsors, the president doesn’t really exist (not in any reasonable or worthwhile capacity) and any moles are certainly useless to our cause, so who does that leave?
The board, the board, and the board.
The board is the only real official power of the FSF.
Now, what does that tell us?
“…we know that in practice the board listens more to corporate sponsors than to us.”One, that if we want to bolster the FSF’s defenses into a force that can actually fight for us in this new decade, that we have to get to know (as well as convince) the board members to help.
Two, that if we fail, we know that in practice the board listens more to corporate sponsors than to us.
Three, that we can determine all of this by simply WATCHING THE RESULTS.
The campaigns team tells us what they want us to think.
The results tell us what we actually know!
It’s a brand new year, where we can find out if the board will ever listen to peons like us.
“…Stallman matters to your bottom line.”Reinstate Stallman, cowards! Or watch your “stock” continue to plummet. We know we don’t matter to you — our de facto importance comes down to numbers and talking sense to people who are obviously listening to corporations, all day long. But Stallman matters to your bottom line.
As to what should matter more than votes, is the Mission of the FSF. But missions are always open to interpretations. Corporations like to reshape those interpretations (both in the minds of the board and the minds of the public) and it’s common for organizations like the FSF to stray from their mission and cling more to messaging and “awareness” campaigns as they get older.
For the FSF to hold to their mission means that someone has to put them on it again. Now go back and read it again — who do you think is going to get the FSF to return to their mission in earnest? Certainly not the corporate sponsors, are you kidding?
“It’s already too corporate, you’ll destroy it if you go that direction.”Hold them to it! Or, you can just keep throwing your money towards the bidding of their bigger sponsors. That’s a very Bill and Melinda thing to do, but the failed fundraiser shows that there’s more to the world than Bill and Melinda, eh?
I hope they’ve got your attention now, FSF Board. Now, don’t talk — prove that you heard them. Prove that you care about the Mission of the FSF — And DEFEND SOFTWARE FREEDOM. It’s about more than just fundraisers and worn-out rhetorical crap like “unity”, isn’t it?
Forget about the FSF for a minute — what are you going to actually DO for software freedom, this decade? Now, what is the FSF going to do to help? If it’s going to make the FSF yet more corporate, that really won’t help at all. It’s already too corporate, you’ll destroy it if you go that direction. Some think you’ve already started — does that even matter? █
Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0 Or Later)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA