06 Jun 2016
In recent days, various public allegations have been brought forward against Jacob Appelbaum. The allegations rank from plagiarism to sexual assault and rape.
I find it deeply disturbing that the alleged victims are putting up the effort of a quite slick online campaign to defame Jakes's name, using a domain name consisting of only his name and virtually any picture you can find online of him from the last decade, and - to a large extent - hide in anonymity.
I'm upset about this not because I happen to know Jake personally for many years, but because I think it is fundamentally wrong to bring up those accusations in such a form.
I have no clue what is the truth or what is not the truth. Nor does anyone else who has not experienced or witnessed the alleged events first hand. I'd hope more people would think about that before commenting on this topic one way or another on Twitter, in their blogs, on mailing lists, etc. It doesn't matter what we believe, hypothesize or project based on a personal like or dislike of either the person accused or of the accusers.
We don't live in the middle ages, and we have given up on the pillory for a long time (and the pillory was used after a judgement, not before). If there was illegal/criminal behavior, then our societies have a well-established and respected procedure to deal with such: It is based on laws, legal procedure and courts.
So if somebody has a claim, they can and should seek legal support and bring those claims forward to the competent authorities, rather than starting what very easily looks like a smear campaign (whether it is one or not).
Please don't get me wrong: I have the deepest respect and sympathies for victims of sexual assault or abuse - but I also have a deep respect for the legal foundation our societies have built over hundreds of years, and it's principles including the human right "presumption of innocence".
No matter who has committed which type of crime, everyone deserve to receive a fair trial, and they are innocent until proven guilty.
I believe nobody deserves such a public defamation campaign, nor does anyone have the authority to sentence such a verdict, not even a court of law. The Pillory was abandoned for good reasons.
06 Jun 2016 10:00am GMT
01 Jun 2016
I'm currently working on the Vaani project at Mozilla, and part of my work on that allows me to do some exploration around the topic of speech recognition and speech assistants. After looking at some of the commercial offerings available, I thought that if we were going to do some kind of add-on API, we'd be best off aping the Amazon Alexa skills JS API. Amazon Echo appears to be doing quite well and people have written a number of skills with their API. There isn't really any alternative right now, but I actually happen to think their API is quite well thought out and concise, and maps well to the sort of data structures you need to do reliable speech recognition.
So skipping forward a bit, I decided to prototype with Node.js and some existing open source projects to implement an offline version of the Alexa skills JS API. Today it's gotten to the point where it's actually usable (for certain values of usable) and I've just spent the last 5 minutes asking it to tell me Knock-Knock jokes, so rather than waste any more time on that, I thought I'd write this about it instead. If you want to try it out, check out this repository and run npm install in the usual way. You'll need pocketsphinx installed for that to succeed (install sphinxbase and pocketsphinx from github), and you'll need espeak installed and some skills for it to do anything interesting, so check out the Alexa sample skills and sym-link the 'samples' directory as a directory called 'skills' in your ferris checkout directory. After that, just run the included example file with node and talk to it via your default recording device (hint: say 'launch wise guy').
Hopefully someone else finds this useful - I'll be using this as a base to prototype further voice experiments, and I'll likely be extending the Alexa API further in non-standard ways. What was quite neat about all this was just how easy it all was. The Alexa API is extremely well documented, Node.js is also extremely well documented and just as easy to use, and there are tons of libraries (of varying quality…) to do what you need to do. The only real stumbling block was pocketsphinx's lack of documentation (there's no documentation at all for the Node bindings and the C API documentation is pretty sparse, to say the least), but thankfully other members of my team are much more familiar with this codebase than I am and I could lean on them for support.
I'm reasonably impressed with the state of lightweight open source voice recognition. This is easily good enough to be useful if you can limit the scope of what you need to recognise, and I find the Alexa API is a great way of doing that. I'd be interested to know how close the internal implementation is to how I've gone about it if anyone has that insider knowledge.
01 Jun 2016 4:54pm GMT
Back in late April, the well-known high-quality SDR hardware company Nuand published a blog post about an Open Source Release of a VHDL ADS-B receiver.
I was quite happy at that time about this, and bookmarked it for further investigation at some later point.
Today I actually looked at the source code, and more by coincidence noticed that the LICENSE file contains a license that is anything but Open Source: The license is a "free for evaluation only" license, and it is only valid if you run the code on an actual Nuand board.
Both of the above are clearly not compatible with any of the well-known and respected definitions of Open Source, particularly not the official Open Source Definition of the Open Source Initiative.
I cannot even start how much this makes me upset. This is once again openwashing, where something that clearly is not Free or Open Source Software is labelled and marketed as such.
I don't mind if an author chooses to license his work under a proprietary license. It is his choice to do so under the law, and it generally makes such software utterly unattractive to me. If others still want to use it, it is their decision. However, if somebody produces or releases non-free or proprietary software, then they should make that very clear and not mis-represent it as something that it clearly isn't!
Open-washing only confuses everyone, and it tries to market the respective company or product in a light that it doesn't deserve. I believe the proper English proverb is to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes.
I strongly believe the community must stand up against such practise and clearly voice that this is not something generally acceptable or tolerated within the Free and Open Source software world. It's sad that this is happening more frequently, like recently with OpenAirInterface (see related blog post).
I will definitely write an e-mail to Nuand management requesting to correct this mis-representation. If you agree with my posting, I'd appreciate if you would contact them, too.
01 Jun 2016 10:00am GMT