From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

As this article had remained unchanged for a while I guess the original contributor has moved on to other things. I made major changes including:

  • Removed name of contributor atop page
  • removed all the bold and italic formatting -- which made it hard; generally bold/italics in D for emphasis are best used sparingly.
  • gouped all the individuals pay data together and rationalised subheads
  • deleted claim that advocacy work was in breach of 501c3 rules - no evidence. As I understand the ruling groups are allowed to spend funds to a certian threshold on what is lobbying (20% it think). No evidence that even if AdTi did lobby - as distinct for undertake 'educational' activities - that it was in excess of the specified threshold. (There also needs to be caution about embracing the notion promoted by conservatives that advocacy by 502c3's is illegal).
  • couldn't see that the plea for open source advocates to organise and raise funds belongs on a page about AdTI funding. (repasted below)
  • there was no citation of what AdTI did re Northrup Grumman so deleted it
  • also no evidence that what AdTI was doing was covered by Microsoft anti-trust rulings so deleted it;
  • condensed Wired ref. I'm less concerned about the citation of an email from Microsoft re funding of AdTI than the contributor. It is common for big companies to insist they will only answer questions they have been notified. So they send their carefully crafted responses by email as a way of controlling the message and avoiding follow up questions. It is also common for governments and coprorations that attrribution not be the name of the PR person supplying the answers but only "a spokesperson for said X". So I take the Wired email as credible even if the original is not available for independently checking.
  • there was an eweek article that didn't add anything re ADTI funding that I have removed -- seemed this went more to the arguments over opensource. repasted below
  • I'll reexamine the Singer connection too
  • I also removed the summary par which seemed to me to be overtstating the case given the evidence advanced.--Bob Burton 16:47, 5 Jun 2004 (EDT)

repasted material

Open Source and Free Software activist Bruce Perens recently sent us a Call for Donations to try to counterbalance the "findings" of "think tanks" like AdTI. I've been hanging around the Washington, D.C., area for a good number of years now. I've watched the professional lobbyists in action, and they get the big bucks because they're good at what they do. But there are a lot more of us than there are of them. We have seen that Open Source activists can make a difference if enough of us make the right calls (and send the right emails and faxes) to the right people.

Bruce is 100 percent correct when he says, "Free Software is no longer 'under the radar.' Our electronic freedoms -- even our right to program -- are under a very well-funded and vicious attack. We must actively defend ourselves now, or the good that we've created will be erased."

It takes money, time, and effort to advance the causes we hold dear. Often the effort seems futile. It is easy to get overwhelmed by the endless wear-you-down tactics and resources the people on the other side enjoy. But the alternative is to simply walk away and let them have their way, and that simply won't do. - NewsForge, [1]

The institution, a Washington think tank that is partly funded by Microsoft Corp., released the paper written by its president, Kenneth Brown, and titled "Opening the Open Source Debate."

The paper repeats many of Microsoft's arguments around open source and the GPL, stating that while open source is helpful to the global software industry as a development model, the GPL holds many risks and threatens the cooperation between different parties collaborating to create new technologies. - eWeek, June 11, 2002 [2]

I hope the added section Northrop and AdTI is now enough documented with relevant links.

Bonzai 04:53, 10 Jun 2004 (EDT)