ESR steps down from OSI 503
Hope Thelps writes "According to an article on news.com.com, Eric Raymond is stepping down from his role as president of the OSI. His replacement will be our very own Russ Nelson. "
As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"
It looks like.. (Score:5, Funny)
Just kidding Eric, don't shoot me!
Re:It looks like.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It looks like.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Stepping down to do "ambassadorial" and "outreach" work reminds me of all the CEO's who "stepped down to spend more time with their family", or on "other projects" but would "stay on the board as an advisor" during the dot-com bust.
Its good they finally fired him. Woops. I mean let him step down.
Re:It looks like.. (Score:2)
Re:It looks like.. (Score:3, Interesting)
But the original OpenSolaris announcement did say they were bringing someone extremely well respected in the FOSS community to be the fifth board member.
ESR seemed to really have an affinity for Sun's products, he's been the most vocal about them openning Java. Maybe ESR will be joining the OpenSolaris team, which may mean
Re:It looks like.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It looks like.. (Score:2)
More info on Russ Nelson (Score:5, Informative)
And for only $4.99/mo (Score:2, Funny)
Re:More info on Russ Nelson (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:More info on Russ Nelson (Score:2)
-russ
Re:More info on Russ Nelson (Score:5, Funny)
PING google.com (216.239.39.99) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=0 ttl=237 time=90.3 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=237 time=103 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=237 time=75.5 ms
64 bytes from 216.239.39.99: icmp_seq=3 ttl=237 time=129 ms
--- google.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3000ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 75.598/99.877/129.919/19.979 ms, pipe 2
Stumping for irony. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free software proponents, by contrast, champion a different philosophy: all computer users deserve the freedom to run, inspect, sh
Re:Stumping for irony. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you've been drinking too much of the kook-aid that RMS has been handing out.
-russ
Re:Stumping for irony. (Score:3, Informative)
According to the front page of the OSI website [opensource.org]: (emphasis theirs)
Re:Stumping for irony. (Score:4, Insightful)
-russ
Re:Stumping for irony. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, no. As the OSI is proving by the way it handled Sun's patent-encumbered license; they clearly are separable.
Give up the one and you lose the other.
Not really. Give up Free and you lose Open; but as the OSI seems willing to point out that you can keep open and give up on Free.
So what is RMS worried about?
Exactly situations like the OSI approved Sun license - which is clearly as much a weapon used against free software as it is a contribution to open source. Either the OSI did a really sloppy job in proofreading licenses before they approve them; or their agenda is questionable.
I don't understand.Pleast try to, for all our sakes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stumping for irony. (Score:3, Insightful)
I rarely agree with RMS, but for once I have to admit he has a point. RMS's projects are as much about changing social and legal assumptions as they are about making software. OS people just want to make software.
From where I stand, this is a point in favor of OS people. I've never been impressed with RMS's weird little theories. But voluntary cooperation and free access to source c
Re:Stumping for irony. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having the source to software is not very helpful if one does not have the right to do anything with it. Open source development can occur in any organisation - the developers have the right to work on the code. However, if they do not pass freedoms on to the users, the users gain little practical benefit. Users have the right to report bugs and the ability to submit patches for the s
HE'S An ELF!!! (Score:2)
Re:More info on Russ Nelson (Score:4, Informative)
and better yet: http://quaker.org/meetings.html
-russ
p.s. I actually got a very lucrative job involving international travel precisely BECAUSE my web page is designed by a hacker. They chose me, you see, because they didn't want to deal with marketing nonsense.
I look forward to the essay (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I look forward to the essay (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I look forward to the essay (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I look forward to the essay (Score:3)
ObESR Link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ObESR Link (Score:2, Interesting)
A very interesting read. Thanks for the link.
"Surprised By Wealth" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SPYWARE WARNING! DO NOT CLICK LINK! (Score:2)
Misunderstading... (Score:3, Informative)
ESR didn't step down, according to the article, he stepped aside.
ESR stepping down from OSI ASAP? OMG! (Score:2, Funny)
Obligatory Good Morning Vietnam:
"Excuse me sir, seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT, because if it leaks to the VC, you could end up an MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP."
Re:ESR stepping down from OSI ASAP? OMG! (Score:2)
Sorry about the Troll, man.
Approval from the OSI? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Since when? Last time I checked, "open source" was a generic descriptor, and only use of the OSI CERTIFIED mark required approval from the Open Source Initiative.
Re:Approval from the OSI? (Score:2)
Nice misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
Approval from the OSI is required for all open-source licenses, which are used on thousands of products, from the Linux operating system to the Firefox Web browser.
Erm, what? I don't need anyone to "approve" my software's license
Re: [tt] Nice misinformation (Score:3, Funny)
The reasons for this are several fold. Part of it is to discourage new incompatable licenses (you can't use APSL code in Apache that can't be used in Perl that can't be used in Linux that can't be used in AROS, to
Re:Nice misinformation (Score:2)
Re:Nice misinformation (Score:2)
looks? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:looks? (Score:4, Interesting)
Russ Nelson is one of the most steady-handed, brilliant, helpful people I've ever had the pleasure to know. I've been involved in small projects with him over the last decade and in every case, if static was being generated, it sure wasn't from Russ' corner.
I think people will be amazed at Russ' wisdom and even hand at making his opinion known or guiding the conversation/productiveness of any projects he leads. He is a uniter.
Any group that has him involved, is a lucky group indeed.
And he looks like a librarian. A really, really cool librarian.
Re:looks? (Score:4, Funny)
Thank you, Jason, I take that as a sincere compliment. Librarians are some of the fiercest defenders of the right to read.
-russ
Re:looks? (Score:2)
Does this nelson guy look as retarded as ESR does?
You be the judge [russnelson.com]
Re:looks? (Score:5, Funny)
-russ
Re:looks? (Score:2)
OSI and its approval of licenses? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure I like the idea that OSI is pitching itself as "the authority" of license evaluation. Although it is a lot easier to ask the question, "is license A approved by OSI" to mean "is the software licensed under A open source for me" but the question is flawed. One has to recognized that free software licenses are not created equal. The difference of them, and the choice involved, is what makes open source great.
Re:OSI and its approval of licenses? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you could sit down with all of the various and sundry licenses (the OSI lists nearly 60 of them) and feed each of these licenses to a lawyer and see what comes out. However, the OSI does that for you, and the folks that they have looking at licenses know a lot more about software licensing than you do (they probably know more than your lawyer too).
That's why when the OSI complained about Apple's Apple Public Source license Apple changed their license. The OSI's complaints made sense, and lots of ha
Re: (Score:2)
OSI approval required for open-source licenses? (Score:2, Redundant)
OSI isn't spreading FUD about the phrase "open source", are they?
Re:OSI approval required for open-source licenses? (Score:3, Informative)
No, not the OSI, but another organization founded by Bruce Perens, the SPI (Software in the Public Interest). Tradmark #75439502 [uspto.gov].
Then there was a little scuffle where the OSI wanted the trademark from the SPI, and I think it ended up being abandoned, and now the OSI has their 'certification mark' instead.
But in any case, Perens was the guy who co-founded the OSI and coined the term, and at the ver
Re:OSI approval required for open-source licenses? (Score:2)
ready to try to spend his sudden wealth? (Score:5, Funny)
Just when I thought (Score:3, Funny)
Attn: Bill Gates (Score:2)
Mod (Score:2)
I'm surpised slashdot posted his name like that. Especially with recent posts.
OSI Approval (Score:2)
Re:OSI Approval (Score:4, Informative)
1992 [google.ca]
1991 [google.ca]
1990 [google.ca] Speaking about BSD's open source policy
It also has a large amount of use relating to the access of Intellegence information. The OSI simply used a common term relating to source code that is accessable, they did not coin the term and in no way have any way to justify any claims regarding ownership or oversight of it, it is simply a discriptive phrase.
Re:OSI Approval (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not a trademark; the proper description, I think, would be a "term of art."
'As defined in Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law (James E. Clapp), a term of art is "a word or phrase having a special meaning in a particular field, different from or more precise than its customary meaning."'
BTW, Russ, it's fun to read your Angry Economist, and then use google groups to see
I just hope... (Score:3, Interesting)
Russ has a fairly extreme view on libertarian economics [russnelson.com]. ("Extreme" because few people believe there should be no public liability laws -- I'd link but the archives are broken.) Fair enough; I sympathize even if I wouldn't go quite as far as he does.
My big question is: will he manage to keep his personal opinions separate from his OSI work? I do not want to hear any more OSI-related statements alluding to gun control. It's not just unprofessional, it's also a bad idea in that you may alienate people who like open source but dislike Rand.
Upsetting (Score:4, Interesting)
What I mean by that is that geeks traditionally are (to put it in politically correct terminology) "neurologically diverse." We seem to typically be either somewhere on the autistic spectrum (I myself was diagnosed in 1992 with a Nonverbal Learning Disorder, which is an autistic spectrum/PDD condition fairly similar to Asperger's) or to have ADHD. I've always thought that RMS's major problem as far as obtaining genuine (mainstream) relevance is concerned is the fact (at least to my mind) that he is deeply and visibly autistic, which seems to be an enormous hindrance to him when it comes to relating to other people.
ESR by comparison is/was relatively mainstream. I certainly won't say completely...but a lot moreso than RMS, and definitely moreso than is usual for the geek/hacker rank and file. In dealing with the corporate world (*especially* boomer corporates) it's absolutely vital that even if you aren't normal, you can convincingly pretend to be for extensive periods of time...which ESR evidently *is* capable of doing.
The point is that we *do* need someone like that, in order to act as a liason with the rest of the planet. Not only for those of us who genuinely can't do it, but also for those of us like RMS who I suspect probably *could* if they really tried, but who see doing so as tremendously immoral.
I understand some people don't like Raymond, and from what I've read of his writings I think I can at least suspect why that is. I think it's true that he probably *does* have an enormous ego, among other things.
But at the same time, in some ways personally I tend to see him as at least vaguely resembling the sort of person I myself would want to be if I had the courage to become self-actualised. I'm not someone customarily given to hero worship...and I'm not saying I engage in that with Raymond either, exactly...he's written things that I disagree with. But controversy about him aside, I think I have been able to see in him a lot which I admire and consider valuable...and I think as far as FOSS is concerned, he *has* made a difference. I hope that even after stepping down from this position, he'll still be willing and able to keep doing so.
Holy shite! (Score:2, Funny)
I can not believe this is so!
Oh happy day! I think I shall call my mother and share with her the wonderous news!
Re:Holy shite! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't shout. Just walk upstairs from the basement and tell her.
Hearing aid.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hearing aid.... (Score:2)
C'est la vie. I still got an FP, and still have excellent karma. It was worth a couple of points.
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:2, Funny)
So in this analogy, ESR is represented by the veterans, and Russ Nelson is Stalin?
Here Here!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, now it's free to slaughter 30 million developers and subjugate every user to its iron grasp for fifty years. WTF?
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, this isn't always the case. For instance, the American Revolution is a good counter-example. Not only were the original revolutionaries not "eaten" but flourished in the government that followed the revolution.
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Or at least, that's the way the eaters wrote the history books.
Victor writes history? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, according to the abundance of documentation availabe in private and public collections? Or the vast number of eye-witness accounts recorded in private letters and notes of the era?
This whole concept of "victor writes the history books" is flawed when there is an abundance of evidence that is freely available. We can search through and discover the true stories of all of American history, because every step is documented. If you woul
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:3)
(Yes, I realize that you were being funny, but a couple of the moderators didn't.)
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:2)
go and check what happened to the original signatories of the constitution.
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:3, Funny)
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:5, Insightful)
The group who took control of Britain's holdings in America in the American Revolution-- the "founding fathers"-- were already established as the people who controlled America prior to 1750, 1750 being when Britain decided to stop taking a passive, absentee-landlord stance to its American colonies and instead assume a position of active control. The 26 years after that were basically a process of Britain's empowered group going going "hmm, you know, we own you, and we have the right to determine your affairs", and America's empowered group going "you don't have the right to determine our affairs, and you know what, come to think of it, you don't own us anymore either". We call this a revolution but "war for independence" would be a far more accurate way of putting it, since the American side of the war was 13 established and self-sufficient states and their goal was autonomy, not change.
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:3, Informative)
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:5, Funny)
You know, a psychologist would probably be able to interpret many interesting things from your post.
The problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
The stepping aside of the "fanatics" doesn't mean anything more or less than the stepping aside of people with opinions, vision, or a desire to succeed. In the future the "open source movement" will be run like a business, like traditional charities and not-for-profits: i.e., inefficiently, carelessly and by bloated fat parasites who care about their own career, not the organization. In the future, groups like OSI will be operated not for the benefit of open source, but for the benefit of the "grown up" OSI group and its personal power. And we will hail it as the "fanatics" losing power.
Does the person taking ESR's place at OSI represent this process? Probably not. But almost certainly his successor will.
Open source isn't a revolution. This isn't Vladmir Lenin trying to convince people to take up arms and shoot people. This is software development. It is a creative endeavor. In a revolution. Revolutions are tricky because you need people who inspire at the beginning and people who are stable after the beginning. But this isn't a revolution. What is creativity without inspiration?
Re:The problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
With the attack on GPL and Linux, the **AA, the software patent crap, DRM, etc, etc, it will eventually get to the point where all creative thought will be controlled ('All your thoughts are belong to us') unless the people that are creative rise up and stop the stupidity by the corrupted large corporations and corrupted government.
And that *is* happening. The inspiration is there. It's just a slow revolution that you are not part of and therefore you can not see.
Don't expect to watch this revolution on the T.V. news, you won't see it there.
Re:The problem is (Score:3, Funny)
Which, by the way, is something that ESR does. That's what libertarian gun ownership is all about - if you don't like the government, you shoot at it.
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure I agree with your examples, but I agree that it is a sign that Open Source is growing up. The article also mentioned how Open Source has transitioned from a few volunteer hackers to corporate backed programmers. GNU went through the same transformation, so again I view this as a good thing.
The only concern is how much influence corporate needs drive open source rather than individual desires. However, I think in the end the coporate influence can help solidify Open Source due to the prag
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:5, Informative)
Poor example.
[tt] ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, ESR is hardly a fanatic (Score:5, Insightful)
1. ESR is hardly a fanatic. He is much more of a pragmatist, falling somewhere between RMS and Torvalds, but much closer to Torvalds than Stallman.
2. OSI is an organization intended to promote Open Source software. As such it behooves OSI to have someone at the help that WON'T compromise the open source initiative's goals and philosophy, so arguing that his successor (who I know nothing about and wouldn't assume to be a great deal different than ESR) should be willing to change the organization's philosophy, political, or technical stance for some short term gain is very short sighted and ultimately destructive to the entire movement.
3. Having said all that, OSI has always been vulnerable to a "corporate takeover." Whether or not this is the case here (I kind of doubt it is), the position they've sought out as "mediator" between the corporate mindset and the free software movement certainly makes them vulnerable to that kind of thing.
4. I sleep much better knowing that RMS heads up the Free Software Foundation. These folks definite the stance of the movement. It isn't their job to compromise with those who oppose their philosophy, it is there job to articulate their philosophy and argue effectively for it. It is then up to the rest of us to choose our own stance, either 100% one or the other, or some middle-of-the-road mixture of the two. OSI falls somewhere in the middle, but to imply that moving toward the business end of the spectrum to the point where they become indistinguishable means the movement has "grown up" is to miss the whole point of the movement entirely.
Revolutions only eat their children when the revolution betrays its own ideals and becomes something very, very different. Contrast for example the Bolshevik/Communist revolution is Russia, which ran amok and never established communism, merely a dictatorship that called itself communist without practicing any of the economic or social advocated by Karl Marx, and the American revolution, which did remain true to its ideals for the most part and did in establish a democracy in its wake.
One became a monster with an entirely different agenda than the revolution and its revolutionaries while the other did not. One did "eat its children," while the other did not.
A more accurate statement would be to say that
"Each evoluton which betray itself and its ideals had ended uyp eating its children." In which case I can see every reason to expect the Free Software movement (and hopefull the Open Source movement with which it shares some adherents) should be different.
As a corallary, I would say that if history is any lesson, and if the Open Source (or Free Software) movmements do in fact "eat their children" we can pretty much understand that, at that point, they have betrayed themselves and everything they stand for, whith only the rhetoric remaining to gloss over an entirely different, probably very detrimental, agenda.
Luckilly I don't see any evidence of anything like that happening just yet.
Re:Uh, ESR is hardly a fanatic (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, God, me too.
That way he's not out there doing any actual harm.
Re:Uh, ESR is hardly a fanatic (Score:2)
I wholly agree. I don't see the open source revolution following in the footsteps of, say, the communist revolution in Russia because the open source revolution is different. Its main foes are the monopolists and IP-barons who wish all property to b
Not entirely true (Score:5, Informative)
Not any more than you need a ruling class for capitalism to work (someone owns the land, someone works for someone else).
There has been at least one working communist system that was inherently democratic
Both Washington and Moscow had strong interest in undermining this particular example of communism. Washington because it showed communism could outcompete capitalism under the right circumstances (small, democratic, self-organized communes and cooperatives trading with one another) and Moscow because it undermined their argument that communism required authoritarianism to work (this was particularly troublesome as the Spanish democratic variant was working far better than stalinism ever did).
The Spanish government coopted the communists into their system legally, then modified the laws to make them uncompetative and ultimately illegal. Kind of like what is happening to the internet vis-a-vis the expanded copyright laws today.
Re:Uh, ESR is hardly a fanatic (Score:3, Interesting)
RMS has an opinion -- a very strong opinion -- that you (and many others) disagree with. He could be called a fanatic (and this is what the OP was talking about) because his opinion is, from the perspective of most people, "way the fuck out there
Coming ... and going (Score:3, Informative)
I see ESR not so much a fanatic as a self-righteous twit. And from what little I know of Russ Nelson, he's not much better. From his web site:
Damn Libertarians (Score:2)
They think that Ayn Rand farted fairy-dust.
Re:Damn Libertarians (Score:2)
Re:Damn Libertarians (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Coming ... and going (Score:3, Insightful)
-russ
p.s. try archive.org. My point remains.
Re:[tt] You could see this one coming (Score:2, Funny)
"OSI Certified" (Score:4, Informative)
If you entity don't set financial, technical or legal standards, it's probably not really needed.
Open Source Initiative does in fact set legal standards. It maintains a definition of what constitutes an open source license and approves licenses for use with its OSI CERTIFIED branding program [opensource.org].
Re:Why (Score:2)
What 'other' organization? The OSI has been around for years. And they were founded by Bruce Perens, who can make the claim of having coined the term 'Open Source'.
If the OSI is an 'unnecessary' organization for promoting open source, then I don't know which one isn't.
Re:CALLING BRUCE PERENS (Score:2)
Re:Why (Score:2)
Has this post been throught the SUPPRG (Slashdot Users Preferred Posting Review Group) process?
Re:Why (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Tweedle dumb replaced by tweedle dumber (Score:3, Interesting)
-russ