Bruce Perens Aims For OSI Executive 161
mutube writes "Open Source advocate Bruce Perens began petitioning for support in election to the OSI Executive Board. Because it's a self-electing board, demonstrable community support is needed to attain a seat. Perens is standing on a platform of reducing over-representation of vendors in OSI leadership in favor of developers. In his petition notice, Perens suggests that recent Open Source involvement by Microsoft could lead to their being offered a place on the board. With his background fighting SCO and the Novell-Microsoft patent agreements, Perens would be a good counter-balance."
Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone at OSI who values freedom will resign if Microsoft gains a seat on the board. Microsoft is an enemy of free and open software. Organizations that recognize or endorse Microsoft are also enemies. Good luck, Bruce.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do I dislike Microsoft. Yes? Can I take what good they do and use it to my advantage. If they meet the requirements and pre-req's for the OSI, then why should they not be allowed to be a member?
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Insightful)
OSI does not have any members, only a board of directors. Microsoft should not be allowed on the board barring a dramatic and clearly sincere shift in its position and actions, because it cannot be relied upon to act to promote open software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent is not Bruce Perens. its
note the period at the beginning of the name...
Not the real guy!!
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Funny)
note the period at the beginning of the name...
Maybe he's hidden
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Informative)
No! (Score:2)
Hey Bruce (Score:2)
Regards,
Daniel
Re: (Score:2)
Newbie.
(Gah, must learn to resist /. ID wars.)
Cookies Required (Score:2)
Because you must be logged in to sign; an unsubstantiated signature isn't worth a hill of beans.
I also whitelist my cookie sites, but as some other user has kindly pointed out in his/her sig, cookies are a sometimes tool, and logins are actually one of those rare instances of a valid use, IMO.
db
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, substance is relative. I'm not Bruce, so I can't claim to know all his reasons, but left to guess I would say it's probably to empower him to credibly refute any possible claim that ballot-stuffing occurred, i.e., duplicate signatures. Do you not have more than 1 email address? If not, do you not know how to create one in 2 minutes? You may be above such things, but I assure y
PARENT IS A FAKE (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A seat on the board is all able growing and promoting open source software and not about aligning it with the profit based motives of any particular company. Any sitting board member must represent what they believe to be in the best
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:4, Insightful)
So it is all the the the qualifications and the qualities of the individual and how well they will fulfil that role, not race colour, creed, religion 'hehe' should they be currently employed by M$ and be some what considered as closed source fundamentalist. Personally I believe Bruce Perens to be the best candidate for the current vacancies and did the petition thing, how ever at some point in the future there will be other vacancies and just because a person is or has been employed by M$ should not exclude them, not that I can think of any current M$ employees that would be considered suitable for a 'chair' on the OSI board.
Re: (Score:2)
...Being an employee of M$ does not make a person evil, they just happen to be an employee of M$ and they are defined by their behaviour ...
So it is all the the the qualifications and the qualities of the individual and how well they will fulfil that role...
The problem of conflict of interest, on its own, ought to be enough.
Re-read my post, the word 'evil' is not mentioned, just conflict of interest. Conflict of interest disqualifies any M$ candidates from the position. But as you imply, 'evil' is as evil does.
Since you make the association between M$ and the word evil, how else would you describe someone that works for an interest that causes harm to its customers and net-users in general, has an adversarial relation with its customers, has a mult
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been on committees with them before, for example the patent policy board at W3C. I know how to deal with it professionally.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Interesting)
My own observation of their employees has been that the problem is, by and large, not one of intent. Microsoft is a textbook example of how you can pave roads with good intentions. Much of the harm they do isn't deliberate, it's a mixture of bad planning, worse execution, and generally being oblivious to the idea that they aren't perfect (at least until it's too late to do anything about it).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, rather than being actively malevolent, a lot of people just don't give a damn. Some know that they can do the right thing but choose not to get involved. Maybe they'll tell you it's "over their pay-grade".
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then that doesn't count as "hearts in the right place," now does it?
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Funny)
Your 99% figure for MSFT therefore has a ring of truth, if not truthiness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Decimation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know this (Score:2)
'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' - Edmund Burke
I still can't believe you posted your phone number on slashdot. Have you got a paypal account where we can send money?
Phone number (Score:2)
Not for this. But do you mean that publishing those has become dangerous? I've had some that have been generally known.
I got four or five phone calls. 30 or 40 emails. 840 signatures so far.
That phone number is on my web site. Weeks can go by with no calls. Most people don't want to bother me until they have something really interesting to say. They will reply to my slashdot and technocrat postings, and less often email, and even less often phone.
Tha
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, why would anyone want to be on it's board?
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the "high school" nature of this is because the board is self-elected. Otherwise, there would be some formal structure that you could see around the election. The last time I asked Mike Tiemann, the closest definition I got of when the election is was "before the April board meeting", which I think is April 2.
I don't know that MS is a candidate, indeed I have not been told about any candidates. I don't think they'd win, so far. I trust most of the current board not to elect them. I have been on other commitees with Microsoft folks, for example the patent policy board at W3C. Unfortunately, they still like to play dirty. Someone like me can help to balance them.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I now realize that the title of this article is a double-entendre. :-)
And sure, I will be the april fool for doing this, because it's going to take my time, some of the interpersonal relationships aren't going to be fun, and nobody's paying. I must really care or something :-)
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you do.
But it's probably worth remembering you're not Robinson Crusoe on that. There are a lot of silent (for some values of silent) supporters you can tap if you need to. In fact, if you need help from over in Australia, give me a yell.
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most common perceptions I find among my MS clients is that open source and zealotry go hand in hand. If MS appears to be embracing the community and the community rejects them the concept of the open source community as a collection of immature idealists (read not corporate America ready) would be cemented in many minds.
When MS does begin their full force campaign to infiltrate the OSS community it should be met with carefully considered diplomacy, not blunt force resistance. Anything else will be a victory for MS.
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
But I agree that they can make us look bad if we won't come to the table with them. We just have to make sure they don't leave with the table.
Nor should the table budge an inch to suit their needs. Microsoft is not a leader in the open-source world, and until they get their act together, and have had their act together for some time (say, a decade), I really don't see why anyone should trust them. Give MS "observer status" at OSI if you want---perhaps they'll learn something---but to give them decision-making power on the board is irresponsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Insightful)
The opposition from OSS to Microsoft usually stems from people who wanted to be Microsoft friends, and who saw how Microsoft treats its friends/partners. (Long list, from Stacker to kerberos implementations gone wrong, etc...) If you are in OSS, you can see that Microsoft has a history of cheating, you can (with some justification) expect them to try to cheat you, but the business guys expect you to ignore this, or else, YOU are against the corporate ethos? Diplomacy is all well and fine, but it's usually best employed between parties whose good faith is equal.
Let's just agree corporate America isn't ready for open source, I for one am ready for the next debate. Microsoft will not clean up its act without a BIG stick on the nose. So far, it's only got a rolled up newspaper, and only when it got caught red-handed. They have not shown "good faith", they have done damage control. They've never formally renounced "embrace/extend/extinguish" as a modus operandi. This is the people we have to be diplomatic with... Can we just agree we don't want to play, and go home? There's been a very long, bloody history of bad faith(mostly on their part, but yes there have been zealots on the other camp too, however, there's only been casualties on one side), too big to ignore unless something changes(they could formally drop OOXML, and embrace ODF(not in a year, not after the next shareholders meeting, but now!) something LOUD, something that shows they believe in openness(not necessarily open source) that they are willing to face the anger of their shareholders over it. (I've kept fantasizing they'd opensource office instead, but that won't happen that's just a fantasy).
If Microsoft continues with software as a service, they will either become an unstoppable juggernaut, or make themselves completely irrelevant. They don't need the opensource crowd, so what diplomacy we do is just allowing them to dodge bigger and bigger fines from regulatory body, not enticing, encouraging, or helping them believe in openness. And right now, they are making money in giving just the apparence of openness, and corporate America does not care, can not care, will not care, but will bemoan its fate when a stronger Microsoft has it again by the balls and ask us, "where were you, we knew you hated them, why didn't you warn us, you're it guys, etc...". And we'll just tell them, we've been telling you, you just told us we were fanatics... Well sometimes, even fanatics have real opponents, people who believe just as fanatically(if only at the top) in exactly the opposite idea.
I for one think openness means Microsoft cannot bully the market, since I've not seen them win market share on product merit in quite some time, I think they need to bully the market in order to enhance their shareholder value. More openness would be against increasing their market capitalisatiion, and therefore a bad thing, for them. It's mutually exclusive, we can build a market where everyone can play, or Microsoft can build a market where they give permission to play, it's not exactly a place for compromise...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you must use doggy analogies, then I'm afraid that Microsoft have spent so long tasting blood that they'll never make a good pet now. They're known to be dangerous around children and other pets, and have been known to go after adults as well.
I'm sorry, but there's only one thing to do - put them to sleep. I know it sounds cruel, but it's the best option of a pretty bad bunch - the alternati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft certainly has been more active in attacking the free software movement and in particular Linux. Sure, other companies want you to buy their software rather than use something else, but most of them haven't generated the amount of FUD that Microsoft has or engaged in the bullying that Microsoft has. Do you see the Opera folks behaving like Microsoft? I don't think so. Do you see Corel trying to lock people into WordPerfect's file format? No, they were one of the original members of the OASIS commi
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Informative)
There is a scale of corporate collaborators with the Open Source community. It runs the range of Benefactor, Symbiote, User, Parasite. All companies can be fit somewhere on this scale, sometimes we argue about what label one should get. NASA, back when it sponsored the development of most of the Linux network card drivers, was a benefactor. They didn't really plan to use them for their own operations. Most companies that attempt to be a sincere partner with the community are symbiotes, and they return value to the community in exchange for the value they get for their business, for example by developing more Open Source. Users are folks who just passively use the software without doing anything for the community - but we like to have Users because they give us the artistic gratification of seeing our software used and they sometimes become Symbiotes. Parasites are folks like SCO, that take value from the community in a harmful way.
MS, unfortunately, while they are spewing patent FUD at us, while they are attempting to pervert the standards vote at ISO by creating dozens of new members for a single meeting, Microsoft doesn't belong on the partner scale at all. Apple tries to participate in Open Source, sometimes not successfully as when they took Open Darwin private, sometimes successfully as when they support the CUPS printer management system. Adobe, I don't know enough about their recent activities, but they made some open standards that we use very extensively, like Postscript, Type 1 and PDF. They also have been putting DRM in PDF, etc., which is generally negative.
So, Microsoft is not just like any other company just like you are not like any other person. We have to make judgements based on the way they act.
Bruce
Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce,
I think you are missing one key thing users give us... Just by using... Network effects.
I would have a much easier time asking people to switch from office to openoffice.org if everyone else was already using openoffice.org and not office. (I hate using that
We would be getting much better hardware support if we had more plain users. This is a positive input plain old users give us. Even if they don't contribute money or code.
Your thoughts?
all the best,
drew
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page [packet-in.org]
Packet In - net band... copyleft music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People can take all they want in keeping with the copyleft licenses (I haven't thought this through with the others) and not "give back" and still be positive forces and not leaches. I wonder if this overcomes the free rider problem?
Also, I think those who give code back, actually benefit more than just plain users. So it pays to move on to the contribution phase where you can.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
all the best,
drew
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page [packet-in.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Word. When I click an icon, I'd like my document to open or my program to start, or at least some feedback explaining why it didn't. All too often, Linux just sits there and gives you a dumb look when you tell it to do something.
Hint: in default configuration you are supposed to double-click on icons.
You are also not supposed to "install Linux" on a failing hard drive, on an old box that you stopped using after it literally fell apart, with 133MHz Pentium MMX and 32M of RAM, then complain about humongous packages such as OpenOffice and Eclipse "giving you a dumb look when you tell it to do something".
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, my experience was a lot like Anonymous Coward's. I came across tons of bugs in software packages, mysterious error messages, applications quitting with *no* error message, etc.
I know that "well, it's bette
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that, if there isn't enough RAM to run OpenOffice or Eclipse, that the OS put up a dialog box telling you so. Unless you think 32M is not enough memory to put up a dialog box... but I seem to remember Macintosh doing that just fine in 128k of RAM.
Oh, there is enough RAM to run it. It just has to constantly use swap, so it may take half an hour to start. All operating systems behave in this manner, it's just no one would "play with Vista" on an obviously inadequate and likely broken computer, however every time a Microsoft fan installs Linux, he chooses a computer he wouldn't expect being usable for any other purpose.
For what it's worth, my experience was a lot like Anonymous Coward's. I came across tons of bugs in software packages, mysterious error messages, applications quitting with *no* error message, etc.
Examples, please. I hear this constantly from Microsoft fans, and it always happens that they never installed the system in the first
Re: (Score:2)
No, the last time was Ubuntu 6.something, about 2 years ago. I was trying to set up a MythTV box, but gave up after it turned out Linux had no drivers for my Hauppauge WinPVR 250 video capture card. (There was one driver that claimed to support it, but didn't.)
Guess what, Red Hat 6.0 in a professionally preinstalled configuration worked just fine, too.
Maybe it did.
But the Red Hat website specifically claimed that it supported Creative Soundblaster
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly not a friend, although they do benefit from open-source software. They seem like the penultimate holdover from pre-internet software companies: first-mover advantage -> de facto file and ui standard -> price bloat -> ever-tighter copy restrictions -> ?undermining open source alternatives?
Intuit?
Not a friend, although they do offer software to "open source systems"http://www.intuit.com/about_intuit/press_room/press_release/2007/06-13.jhtml [intuit.com]. I agree with you though, these comme
Re: (Score:2)
Though I wouldn't exactly call any one on your list an Open Source promoter, Microsoft is the only software vendor that would dearly love to kill any software, especially Open Source, that doesn't run exclusively on Windows. They've killed others who've simply threat
Perens is Open Sources' Ballmer? (Score:2)
DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!!
BusyBox Funding? (Score:2)
Re:BusyBox Funding? (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless your contribution consisted only of small, isolated bits, which as I understand it was not the case, even if there is nothing left that is recognizably your original code, BusyBox as a whole is still a derivative work and you therefore retain rights in it, no?
Re:BusyBox Funding? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want any money. And regarding settlements, SFLC generally gets money to support its own operations, and I suppose that the plaintiffs want some money to compensate their efforts. They are after all consultants who get paid for their time.
But I am a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing.
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The legal theory of homoeopathic copyright (ie, derivative works that don't contain any of the original content) is one that has been often proclaimed by lawyers but never firmly decided in court. So realistically, no (unless you have the time a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that depends on who your opponents are. If they are a large, well-funded corporation, the financial barrier may be great. If it is a matter of getting other developers of software you started to recognize your rights, it may not be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be fairly straightforward to verify?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But I thought it was better to just walk away from the silly argument. And in any case he's had time enough to remove those lines deliberately.
Re:Let me get all of this. (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can be a leader, or I can post judgements about the worth of the lives of other Open Source developers on Slashdot. :-)
Thanks
Bruce
Respect (Score:2)
The busybox developers are doing their bit to preserve the GPL. It is unfortunate they are so shortsighted as to neglect the value of your contribution completely.
Your willingness to forbear the issue speaks a great deal about your maturity.
While I still appreciate their continuing efforts on behalf of the GPL, my respect for them is greatly reduced.
Thanks for all you've done for us Bruce. I signed the petition and I'll make sure everybody at work knows they have an opportunity to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Want to discuss this with me directly? (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Want to discuss this with me directly? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Want to discuss this with me directly? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm already married :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And even if you weren't, I'm guessing "Ares the Impaler" would not be high on your list of candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Want to discuss this with me directly? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I just wanted to say that whilst I don't always agree with you on everything I think that having someone who is as reasonable as you helping to protect us from the whims of big vendors and especially MS can be no bad thing. I'm not sure how I can support you in any way in this endeavor but I wish you all the luck in the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks! I am conscious that nobody listens to me unless I have the support of folks like you. There are mistakes I've made, that I would take back if I could. I'm trying very hard not to make them this time.
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
> very hard not to make them this time.
You've just rendered yourself unfit for political office. No true politician admits to a mistake, or says he/she would do something differently. It's much more political to blame the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
True politicians suck. I'd much rather a person who can accept that they've made mistakes, as long as I can trust that they'd learn from them. Bruce would have my vote, just based on that statement alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's too long and too obscene to work
Cheers Bruce and FYI: I fully support your candidacy.
Jeremy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back when Bruce and HP/Compaq parted ways, he gave out your info to freely answer questions.
I copied and pasted that into a text file.
Sometime long after, I decided to show how elite I was and I pasted that info into some irc channel.
I remember someone shitting themselves when you answered the phone.
Good times!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO you are one of the few "activists" out there who have stayed true to their promises. I signed the petition and you have my full support.
The actual (and *important*) reason why I'm replying: Please be aware that there is at least one outspoken Nay in your petition. Better read through all the comments so that those numbers are accurate and can in no way be held against you.
Thank you for your commitment to Open Source.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Want to discuss this with me directly? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, no. And this is not because I disrespect anyone, it is because erosion of the term will not improve anything. Although "Open Source" is not federally registered, it is a trademark, and has the same status as "OSI Certified" because the attempt to register "OSI Certified" failed - I don't know why.
"Open Source" includes both source code and the set of rights defined by the Open Source Definition, which I created as the Debian Free Software Guidelines and which only later was taken up by OSI. "OSI Certified" means that OSI agrees that the license in question meets that definition.
I think the term you are looking for is "Disclosed Source Code". That means you can see the source code, but there are not necessarily any rights connected with that. There are many names that can be used for similar things: Shared Source: Microsoft's flavor, various different licenses with no rights in common. Some folks can see source code in some cases. Creative Commons: Usually used for non-software assets, the only common right between all of the licenses is that you can read or view them. And there are things called "crowdsource", "Public Source", and so on.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
This is the essence of leadership. I stated clearly how I thought things should be, convinced others and rallied them to the cause of holding that line, and it's stood up pretty well for 10 years.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:Want to discuss this with me directly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of your arguments seem to be based on the "broken windows" fallacy.
While companies do make money from litigating patents, that money has to come from somewhere else: and that somewhere else is other companies. It's not creating wealth, it's simply redistributing it. In some cases this may be a good thing, e.g. a small company getting a chunk of cash from a big company that already has more money than it's able to inject into the economy; however, this comes at a cost in innovation and competition.
Software patents are particularly harmful, because software development is one of the few fields with relatively low barriers to entry. A handful of innovative developers can put together something pretty impressive for a few million dollars, but if they do they're almost certainly going to get sued by someone else who isn't pushing the envelope. The best they can hope is to get bought out by a larger company. The US has been the world leader because of constant innovation, but the threat posed by software patents threatens to curtail that.
Since you claim to be serious, you really need to remember that very little software is written to be sold. The majority of software is used internally at businesses who have no intention (and often no method) of directly profiting from it. The software is used to improve business efficiency, which in turn allows greater production, hiring of more employees, and therefore leads to infinite sales and profits.
Open source software has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of developing software in-house, which means that more of it can be developed and therefore more benefit can be obtained from it in terms of improved efficiency.
Microsoft Office "Open" XML is a good example of what you don't want, because it means virtually everybody using computers at a business has to pay Microsoft a bunch of money in order to function. This is great for Microsoft and the people they employ and so on; however that's a pretty small part of the entire economy. For the most part, all it does is redirect wealth from a very large chunk of the economy to a very small part. Most people don't in any way benefit from Microsoft's profits.
Please sign the petition (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks
Bruce
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Get the word out (Score:2)
db
MS open source (Score:2)
About that board. (Score:2)
Why isn't there any representation for the average people that actually use the software? That is one of the biggest failings of OSS, it rarely takes the end-user into account.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll restate the first point in my campaign: Most Open Source developers are co-developing the software for their own use. They need the software for their own operations, and they are the users who are interested enough in the software to actually want to help.
Open Source doesn't really separate developers from users, anyone can develop. Not everybody knows how, but they can help the team in other ways - tech writing, for example.
So, I t