Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
| From: | Russell Nelson <nelson-AT-crynwr.com> | |
| To: | license-discuss-AT-opensource.org | |
| Subject: | Three new proposed OSD terms | |
| Date: | Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:09:35 -0500 |
We have always pushed people in this direction, but by adding these
terms to the OSD, we will be proactively refusing licenses which don't
meet these requirements.
11. *The license must not be duplicative.* That is, it is up to the
submitter to demonstrate that the license solves a problem not
sufficiently addressed by an existing certified license. Certification
may be denied to any submitted license, even a technically OSD-
conformant license, if OSI deems it duplicative.
12. *The license must be clearly written, simple, and understandable.*
Open-source licenses are written to serve people who are not
attorneys, and they need to be comprehensible by people who are
not attorneys. OSI may deny certification to licenses which,
though technically correct and OSD-compliant, are so obscure
and complicated that an intelligent layperson cannot be assured
of knowing his or her rights and liabilities after reading it.
The burden of engineering this clarity falls on the submitter.
13. *The license must be reusable*. If the license contains proper
names of individuals, associations, or projects, these must be
incorporated by reference from an attachment that declares the
names of the issuer and any other cited parties, and which can be
modified without changing the terms of the license. As the sole
exception, the license may name its owner and steward.
--
--My blog is at blog.russnelson.com | The laws of physics cannot
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | be legislated. Neither can
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 cell | the laws of countries.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 212-202-2318 VOIP |
Posted Mar 2, 2005 20:25 UTC (Wed)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link] (2 responses)
Are any of the old licenses going to be deprecated?
Posted Mar 2, 2005 21:38 UTC (Wed)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (1 responses)
But incompatibility with existing licenses is a problem, as it prevents code reuse. In the past, the problem has been attacked several times by going back and contacting every single contributor to a significant work and getting them all to agree to dual licensing or even triple licensing, and ripping out code from anyone who can't be located.
Posted Mar 2, 2005 22:52 UTC (Wed)
by Duncan (guest, #6647)
[Link]
Posted Mar 2, 2005 20:57 UTC (Wed)
by nigelm (subscriber, #622)
[Link] (46 responses)
Posted Mar 2, 2005 21:36 UTC (Wed)
by jwb (guest, #15467)
[Link] (45 responses)
Posted Mar 2, 2005 21:44 UTC (Wed)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link] (41 responses)
Posted Mar 2, 2005 21:48 UTC (Wed)
by jwb (guest, #15467)
[Link] (40 responses)
Posted Mar 2, 2005 22:46 UTC (Wed)
by sdalley (subscriber, #18550)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:08 UTC (Wed)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
I guess he would have garnered more support for his statement had it been a generalized one about a group of murdered individuals being little Eichmanns.
Sorry. This is getting way off topic. Maybe we should take it to the blogosphere. Any suggestions? (I don't have one myself.) Only half kidding, here.
Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:14 UTC (Wed)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
Or, on an alternate line of thought: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580085520
My wife bought this book recently and it has a refreshingly different perspective--I thought maybe you all might appreciate it... :-)
Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:44 UTC (Wed)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (1 responses)
Bruce
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:52 UTC (Thu)
by bk (guest, #25617)
[Link]
This is utter nonsense.
Statistically, the vast majority of people do not work because it is enjoyable. People work so they have the means to survive. Therefore the cost of subsistence will always dictate the minimum work required of an individual. If you pay a person less, they will have to work more. If you pay a person more, they will have the luxury of less work ("free time"), unnecessary luxury goods or both.
It should be obvious, therefore, that the most effective way to extract the most work out of an individual is to pay them such that for them to earn enough to survive they must work to the maximimum of their physical ability. A subsistence wage.
Russ Nelson doesn't know what he's writing about.
Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:46 UTC (Wed)
by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
[Link]
Some years ago (never mind exactly how many) my high-school English
teacher accused me of not paying sufficient attention in class, or
some such.
So, I went out and bought a copy of Bertrand Russell's
In
Praise of Idleness and Other Essays, and conspicuously read it in
class. She never said anything about it.
Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:37 UTC (Wed)
by pyellman (guest, #4997)
[Link] (29 responses)
As for your claim of racism, my reading leads me to believe that were it not for the provocative title Mr. Nelson chose for his brief essay, there would be little that was remarkable in it. It is a common rhetorical practice to lead a fairly mundane essay -- which is this case boils down to "People who see little benefit from working may have less motivation to do so" with a provocative title such as what Mr. Nelson chose, though I can't for the life of me figure out why -- it always seems to backfire.
One thing I will note, and in that agree that Mr. Nelson has made a mistake, is that when in a position which brings with it public scrunity, you are not, at least in this country, permitted to publicly declare any opinions, on a large number of subjects, which might diverge even trivially from the dominant paradigms. Personally, I don't think that's right or good for the country or society, but I recognize that that's the way it is and that therefore Mr. Nelson is not the right person for the position, as any attention given to his other opinions probably distracts from his ability to fill the role of OSI president.
For that, however, I mainly blame people like you. Frankly, I found your behavior and name calling to be far more offensive than anything I saw written by Mr. Nelson. Please do me the favor of identifying yourself, so that I may attach a name and possibly a face to this kind of reflexive namecalling and smallmindness.
Peter Yellman
Posted Mar 2, 2005 23:47 UTC (Wed)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (27 responses)
Bruce
Posted Mar 3, 2005 1:04 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (25 responses)
Bruce, your point is well taken.
But there's a further one, which should be noted: There are people out there with no discernable ethics, who will use anything they can find out about you personally, without concern for context or sense of proportion, to attempt to destroy your effectiveness in your trade or profession -- or in vital non-profit work that you do on the side. The open-source community, in particular, is bogged down by significant numbers of these low-life.
The recent campaign we saw carried out in public (Slashdot, OSI license-discuss) against Russ Nelson over his 2001 snip of a personal-blog essay (to which he reacted quite graciously by replacing it with a note saying it was poorly worded and had been withdrawn) seems to have been 100% anonymous, scurrilous, and malicious. I wasted no time in advising the perpetrators that I thought they were lowlife scum attacking someone doing valuable work, and I frankly wish you would, too.
(I did think it was a rather poorly written and silly personal essay, but that was quite beside the point.)
Best Regards
Posted Mar 3, 2005 1:30 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link] (2 responses)
The irony of this whole fiasco is that after reading a thread Russ started on slashdot in early February, I find his views on the FSF and RMS more offensive than his badly worded essay. For that reason, I don't think he should be the president of OSI. One can have disagreements with the FSF and RMS, but I don't think it's wise for the leader of OSI to be publically disparaging the hand the feeds it (e.g.: with much of the code we all use).
But I can still can't help but believe that you are spot on here, Rick, that this whole "Blacks are Lazy" fiasco has been nothing but a smear campaign (that, unfortunately, Russ invited with the inflamatory title and poorly thought out essay). Whatever you may think of Dave Horowitz, this sounds eerily similar to his experience with Al Franken calling him a racist (see here for Mr. Horowitz' response). It was an assertion that he backed up with exactly zero evidence. And humorous, to boot, when you take just a cursory look at David Horowitz' civil rights history.
And just so I'm not accused by anyone of hiding behind the safety of anonymity, I will sign with my real name. Not that I've kept it secret, as I use this handle on more than couple of sites.
Posted Mar 4, 2005 16:32 UTC (Fri)
by rjw (guest, #10415)
[Link] (1 responses)
He seems to be very capable of inexplicably branding people racist himself.
I don't think it is a very good example to bring up.... at least for someone you want to defend.
Posted Mar 5, 2005 1:10 UTC (Sat)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
Hoping this is the last of this thread, but I just wanted to dispel this nonsense. I checked the link you posted. Even though Media Matters is not a place I would generally trust for good, scholarly analysis, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry to say that, in particular (but certaintly not limit to), their 'catalogued' instances of David Horowitz' racism was done in almost the precise same manner as the anonymous smearers in this thread. Unfortunately for MM, they actually provided links, probably in the hopes that most people wouldn't actually go and read what was on the other end of them. I did, and their arguments don't hold up.
Sorry, but it most certainly was a good example to bring up.
By the way, I didn't catch your name.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 1:49 UTC (Thu)
by jwb (guest, #15467)
[Link] (11 responses)
If people don't want their words to have consequences, they ought to not publish them. There's a lot of crap in usenet archives that I'd rather forget, but it's my own fault and I don't expect other people to self-censor just to protect my delicate ego.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 2:09 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
So do you think Mason Weaver's book titled "It's Okay To Leave the Plantation" is racist, too?
Seriously, now, judging things by the title? Whatever happened to the slashdot admonishment, "RTFA"?
Note that I'm not implying you haven't read the essay in question, or even that the essay is good, but calling someone racist for a poor choice of words isn't any better than the essay itself. And you've pretty much admitted that you would judge an article written by Rick Moen titled "Blacks are Lazy" by it's poorly chosen title.
Signed, an angry white male (like that should make any difference, unless you are a racist, of course).
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:25 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (8 responses)
Listen Rick, if you write an essay that says "Blacks Are Lazy"...
...then, you are significant risk of spurious personal attack from anonymous trolls who either
can't be bothered to read it, or do and are prepared to throw common sense, not to mention any
residual personal ethics, to the wind. Right, got that.
If people don't want their words to have consequences, they ought to not publish
them.
Speaking of consequences, who were you, again? Oh, right, a particularly disgusting
anonymous critic of people who actually do perform useful work for our
community.
Well, my community, anyway.
Rick Moen
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:41 UTC (Thu)
by jwb (guest, #15467)
[Link] (7 responses)
He goes on in the next few sentences to dig himself further into his hole in the course of making a bizarre and completely unfounded argument about races and economics. But the point still stands that he's using "lazy" - a character insult - to substitute for his real point about economics. As I said above, he's either a racist or the worst writer in the English language today.
Michael Tiemann is going to be a *far* better choice. Besides his numerous contributions to the code base he also has a proven ability to interact with individuals, organizations, and corporations without wedging his boot in his mouth.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:49 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
I'm sorry, jwb, what did you say your real name was?
Doh! Silly me.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:50 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (4 responses)
You seem hell-bent on casting a happy light on the essay... This statement is, of course, in glorious defiance of the plain facts of my post. Either that,
or you have a selective inability to comprehend the words "rather poorly written and silly
personal essay". Pick one, please: incompetence or malice.
But, of course, you don't have to worry about issues of personal responsibility:
You're yet another anonymous flamer. Or would you rather sign your name to these name-
calling exercises and personal-attack drivel you've been gracing us with, which misdeed you're
now compounding with flagrantly selective quotation?
Want to dig yourself in deeper, "jwb"?
Rick Moen
Posted Mar 3, 2005 4:04 UTC (Thu)
by bk (guest, #25617)
[Link] (3 responses)
"Black people are lazy in that they work less hard than whites."
Defend the non-racist nature of that statement, please.
Thanks,
Posted Mar 3, 2005 4:17 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
If he did that, he would be playing into your own game of flagrant selective quoting. Funny, I think I heard your demand before. Oh, yes! It went like this: "do you still be your wife", or something like that.
Click on the link I gave earlier to take you to Dave Horowitz' response to Al Franken's accusation of racism and read at least the first paragraph or two for a little education. Pay attention to words like "toxic" and "witch-hunt". Unless, of course, you don't wish to be exposed. But of course, you don't have to worry about that publically, now, do you mister "bk" aka Anonymous Coward #2?
Posted Mar 3, 2005 4:21 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
Oh, look. It's another anonymous flamer! (Of course, it might actually be the same one.
Once cannot tell.)
Since when is "racist" equivalent to "silly"?
The answer to your impertinent question is, of course, "Mu": The question cannot be
answered as posed on account of the whack-assed assumption on which it rests.
The rest of us, who are possessed of both a capacity for common sense and the inclination
to stick to fair commentary that we're willing to actually stand behind, read the personal-blog
essay (if we gave a damn) and thought "Well, I think I see what he's trying to say,
but it's badly
expressed and not worth spilling virtual ink over anyway."
But you're of course burdened with neither quality, and so can stop with blatant name-
calling slurs and
question-begging questions that insult our intelligence.
And who were you again, by the way?
If you think I'm going to "defend" anything at all, ever, to the likes of you, you're severely
deluded, sir/
madam/critter. Whether you're one anonymous flamer or several, I'd rather just drop the lot of
you into the same oubliette. And good riddance.
Rick Moen
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:46 UTC (Thu)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link]
Out of context, it is indefensible. In context, I have abandoned it. What is your point? That you can quote people out of context? Congratulations, you know how to use a text editor! It's obvious that you, yourself, are a racist. Why else you would be attacking me so strongly?
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:48 UTC (Thu)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link]
Okay, we've now established that I'm not a racist. Do you care to stop calling me one?
Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:20 UTC (Thu)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link]
"Now playing #1 on the Ignoramus chart is jwb!" Dude, it's simply not possible to remove the "blacks are lazy" (oh no, I said it again) phrase without deleting the post entirely. My preference is to retract it completely in every way, shape, or form. I simply didn't anticipate that ANYBODY could be SO STUPID as to think that I ACTUALLY believe that BLACKS ARE LAZY (there, I said it again). Anybody with two brain cells to scrape together who reads the original posting can see that my point was that any perception that BLACKS ARE LAZY (oh, no, I said it again!) is caused exactly and precisely by racism, and that the original genesis of the idea was very likely the fact that freed slaves chose to work less hard than when THEY WERE BEATEN INTO WORKING HARD. There, have I given you enough material to quote me out of context? I may as well, since you and others have already done it.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 2:37 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (9 responses)
As far as I can tell the piece was penned on February 7, 2005. The "Jan 1 2001" appears to be spurious. The date is significant because it appears that Russ knew that he was or would be be OSI president when he posted the piece. I wasn't witness to the defamation campaign as I was at LinuxWorld when this happened. But a Fortune 500 CEO did mention the poorly-worded article to me, with some concern. My grandfather was chief judge of the Bronx, in New York. He would never gamble, because to be seen gambling might create the appearance of impropriety. Unfortunately, we Open Source and Free Software spokespeople do have to be concerned about how we are seen. This hasn't been easy for me either, so I sympathize with Russ. Bruce
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:26 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link] (3 responses)
Um, what makes you say it's spurious? Have you asked him? Pardon me for saying so, Bruce, but if you haven't asked him, then you're claim isn't based on fact, but speculation. It could very well be the original date with February 7, 2005 being the date it was updated/pulled.
That some anonymous Fortune 500 CEO mentioned ... with some concern doesn't mean a thing. Did you suggest to this CEO that he contact Russ (sheesh, he even has his cell phone number on his site)? If this CEO didn't want to do that, then he's no better than the people Rick is describing: trusting in rumour and innuendo instead of facts.
With all due respect, Bruce, poppycock. That's true only with respect to the subject at hand: FOSS. It's why I never paid much attention to what seemed like ESR's Christian-bashing to me. I don't know or even want to know whether or not he actually did bash Christians (though there is definitely at least one allusion to that in the Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto, even though it's not all that bad). What concerned me is what he said about Free and/or Open Source software and I was decidedly annoyed by some of those comments at least when it came to the FSF and RMS, and, you might be glad to hear, Bruce Perens ;-).
If there are many CEOs that are concerned about some comments allegedly made by the president of OSI that have little or nothing to do with their positions and made in a entirely different and personal forum: his blog and yet they won't check the comments out for themselves and engage in some honest communication with the supposed offender, then we have a lot more to worry about than the promotion of FOSS in business.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:04 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (2 responses)
When the piece first came to my attention, it bore the proper date. I discussed the piece with Russ at LinuxWorld. He did not present it as an old piece that people had to dig up to defame him. And I don't think you seriously believe that the piece was written at 00:00 on 1 January 2001. Look at the time on the bottom of the page. It's obviously an epochal date for the software being used. Did you suggest to this CEO that he contact Russ The response of that CEO and the response I heard indirectly from a VP of a big company was that because of the incident, they didn't want to deal with him any longer. It's why I never paid much attention to what seemed like ESR's Christian-bashing to me. Well, I'm glad it doesn't bother you, but you're already converted to our cause. I was very uncomfortable with Eric's issue-mixing and did feel that it caused us harm. yet they won't check the comments out for themselves and engage in some honest communication with the supposed offender I think they did check the comments out for themselves. I believe their response was not to the nature of Russ' comment but to the fact that someone who would make such a comment in a public venue was a major political liability to Open Source. In the companies where those folks worked, what Russ wrote would have gotten a person fired, and their response to us was "get rid of that guy". Of course I wasn't in a position to do anything about that except to attempt to impress upon Russ the importance of the situation. Bruce
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:22 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link] (1 responses)
Points taken. You've certainly expended more effort in this debate than some people who still choose to cowardly remain nameless. Thanks for your reasoned insight.
Heh. I didn't think much of the date, but I didn't notice the time.
Well, that's their own prerogatives, but it still begs the question of whether or not they were depending on what other people were saying about what Russ was saying.
I still think it was overblown given the personal nature of the blog, public or not.
Yes, it might have gotten him fired, which might, in turn, have gotten the company sued, as we are learning from some fired-for-blogging cases like the "Queen of Sky" case among others. Corporate executives need to grow thicker skins.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:38 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
Slight correction. The Queen of Sky issue isn't being litigated, as best as I could find out, though she did file a complaint with the EEOC and was appealing to the airline to try and get her job back.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:43 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (4 responses)
(Personally, I have a difficult time taking seriously someone carping over the contents of a
prominent volunteer-community member's personal blog -- strategically deceptive
date stamp or not. I mean, it's a personal blog, for heaven's sake, the ASCII
equivalent of shower-stall karaoke. A Fortune 500 executive might be clueless about the
relevant perspective, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be. And such a volunteer -- for
good or for bad -- is logically hardly subject to anything like a judge's standards of personal
trustworthiness and gravitas.)
Best Regards,
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:12 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (3 responses)
Rick, Shower-stall karoke is not broadcast around the world and text-searchable. Maybe it doesn't happen to you as often, but I have had semi-private communications appear on the front page of Slashdot 15 minutes after I made them, and then make their way to CNET within hours. When you reach a particular level of notoriety this becomes a very real problem. And because of that I've learned to conduct myself differently. Bruce
Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:07 UTC (Thu)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link] (1 responses)
I was just starting to figure that out when the loony-bins descended on me. Oh well, rule #1 is: never say anything which sounds bad taken out of context. This furor will pass, all will be forgotten, and I'll have another chance at all the fame(!) and fortune(?) the presidency of OSI gets you.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:45 UTC (Thu)
by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541)
[Link]
Of course -- and maybe your implying this -- that's quite an impossibility. The witch-hunters, as we've seen from those who don't seem to want to sign their real names in this thread, will twist and contort what you say to smear you. If you write "I never said, 'I hate green people'" the anonymous witch-hunters will quote the 'I hate green people' portion.
IMNSHO, if you are confident in you're views, the best approach is unapologetic transparency. Let what you say speak for itself and those with not-so-twisted senses of decency will seek out what you've written including any subsequent commentary you make to clarify what you wrote instead of picking out what they perceive as offensive, even though they know darn well they are smearing someone to a) silence opposing viewpoints or b) impose their politically correct language on the unsuspecting.
Though Bruce makes some good points, I beg to differ that this would have made much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. If ESR's non-FOSS rants really harmed 'us', I'm straining to see just how. It's his FOSS views that concerned me, and we'll never really know where we'd be if it wasn't for ESR, or for the OSI, for that matter. CatB was his most significant contribution. The rest...well, eh, who can say.
Personally, Russ, I didn't like a lot of what I saw you post on slashdot about the FSF and I respectfully (though vehemently) disagree. And that is why I think you didn't belong at head of the OSI. Using freshmeat.net, take a look at the percentages of projects using the GPL or the LGPL and note where they rank. That says a lot about what people think of the licenses that the FSF has contributed and should command our respect. Given the numbers for the MPL and the QPL, I'd say they were near complete failures in terms of acceptance. I suspect the CDDL is going to fare even worse. Your final act as president (adding three more conditions for new licenses) was probably the best thing anyone could have done.
But I must give credit where credit is due. It takes guts to come here and participate in a discussion where some disingenious folks are calling you a racist. Know that you are in good company. If you like David Horowitz, that is. But there are many more victims of this witch-hunt. You're right. Being called a racist hurts. It's toxic. Especially if you know in your heart that you are quite the opposite.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:36 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
Shower-stall karoke is not broadcast around the world and text-searchable.
Yes, I admittedly exaggerated a bit -- but not by much: The key phrase remains "personal blog". Digging into someone's personal blog for out-of-context snippets to decry in public as if they were part of his institutional affairs is obviously, paradigmatically scurrilous and generally the province of people so devoid of scruple as to be not worth scraping off the bottom of my shoe -- e.g., the, anonymous er. bulvons[1] we've been hearing from in this thread. Even your Fortune 500 executive would probably either figure that out or having his/her handler point it out to him.
[1] As we say in Norwegian. ;-) (Er, Leo Rosten has a definition, if you need it.)
Best Regards,
Posted Mar 3, 2005 13:54 UTC (Thu)
by icin (guest, #28193)
[Link]
Posted Mar 3, 2005 18:59 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
It is a common rhetorical practice to lead a fairly mundane essay [...] with a provocative title such as what Mr. Nelson chose, though I can't for the life of me figure out why -- it always seems to backfire.
It fails (particularly in the open source community) because of a small number of moral defective nonentities getting their thrills by misusing those sound bites, where possible, to bash those well-known for accomplishment. It gives them a momentary feeling of personal significance, by association. They do it because they can, because they lack personal scruple, and because (being carefully anonymous) they don't have to fear being held accountable for it.
There's an old-fashioned word for that, that I don't think I've had cause to haul out in forty years: cowardice.
And, Bruce? You're a good guy, I respect your views, and appreciate your comments, but you really ought to disavow the scummy company you've been in, in this thread. (I refer, here, to the several anonymous smear-artists.) You'll feel much cleaner, trust me.
Best Regards,
Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:00 UTC (Thu)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link] (3 responses)
Sigh. I'm SO EASY to troll. Okay, "jwb" (if in fact you really ARE jwb, or if you are instead some imposter who merely calls himself jwb so that we will confuse you with the REAL jwb, whoever *he* is), here's the deal: my economic theories are called "Austrian" economics. The fact that you can't name them as such says that you wouldn't recognize a bizarre economic theory if it came up and introduced itself to you as "Hi, I'm Mr. Bizarre Economic Theory. How are you today?"
Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:45 UTC (Thu)
by jwb (guest, #15467)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 3, 2005 7:16 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
It seems like every time you get in front of a keyboard you divulge ample evidence of why you're unsuited to being the president of OSI.
And who were you again, Sir Scurrilous? Russ actually did real, excellent work as OSI head, appreciated highly by me and many others -- as he continues to do in other capacities. You, by contrast, seem to be a pimple on the derriere of open source, lacking even the elementary decency to sign your name to your ethically degenerate backstabs.
I wouldn't actually injure you and your ilk if I were able to hunt you down, but the notion of strapping you into chairs and singing a few thousand rousing choruses of the F__ You Song[1] has strong appeal.
[1] As featured, passim, in "Lost in Transition" by Wil McCarthy, a rousingly fun SF book. I'm appending that comment so that my time is not entirely wasted through being focussed on you and your cohort.
Rick Moen
Posted Mar 3, 2005 15:10 UTC (Thu)
by RussNelson (guest, #27730)
[Link]
AHA! So I have defeated you intellectually! I'm glad that you admit it.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 0:31 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link] (2 responses)
"racism" ... "endangering the mission of the OSI" ... "crackpots" ...
Speaking of crackpots, "jwb", as long as you're taking gratuitous personal slams at public figures -- one who are probably precluded by the libel laws from striking back -- would you mind at least signing a real name, preferably your own, to your rhetoric?
Going after the professional suitability of public figures, while speaking as a critic from behind cover of anonymity, where the object of criticism is (one's facile and inaccurate commentary on) the person's personal blog, strikes me as extremely sleazy.
It's the very, very worst tradition of the gutter portion of the open source movement -- your portion, it would seem. I'm sick of it, and see no reason to tolerate it further.
Sincerely,
Posted Mar 3, 2005 4:57 UTC (Thu)
by akumria (guest, #7773)
[Link] (1 responses)
That would be the cover of anonymity a paying subscriber to LWN nets you.
person's personal blog
What? Like a diary? That people hide.
Or what? Like a diary that people want to share.
You can't have it both ways.
I have a 'blog' (I call it a diary, I'm not so trendy). But I don't want to share it. If you want to share your diary, then face the consequences.
Those consequences can include people forming an opinion about you without ever having met you. Labelling you as various things just on the basis of what you have written, etc.
Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:34 UTC (Thu)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
That would be the cover of anonymity a paying subscriber to LWN nets you.
Excellent! Which scurillous backstabber are you? Are you the third, or is this all one guy?
What? Like a diary?
If I have to tell you what a personal blog is like, you're either past my help or blissfully
unacquainted with the ridiculous things. If the former, oh well. If the latter, I envy you.
You can't have it both ways.
Sorry, you can take your phony, artificial contradiction and file it with your
nonexistent personal
credentials. The irony of you talking about people standing behind what they write is rather
astonishing, I must say.
And, come to think of it, though I've never met Russ and so don't know him from personal
experience -- but was just reminded of this by my friend Rob Walker -- the notion of accusing
this extremely well-known, devout Quaker of racism is about the most laughable thing I've heard
all day long.
Rick Moen
Posted Mar 3, 2005 9:15 UTC (Thu)
by a_hippie (guest, #34)
[Link]
How can anyone thrive under these subjugated conditions?
Russ, thanks for chipping in and being honest. I'd vote for an honest person (like you) who *is* human rather than a pseudoperson[ality] any day.
I can empathetically realate to the ad hominem attacks. Prior to being elected president of a local ham club, I too received hate mail by folks who didn't want to make themselves known. It does take a toll, but then again, it helped me grow beyond that insecure ego-building stage I was straddled with at the time.
Good call and good luck to you!
Best regards,
Jaye (who just happens to be a_hippie), ke6sls
How about adding "material" or "significant" to the "solves a problem" requirement, and specifically excluding calling compatibility with another OSI-approved license a "problem"?Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Yes, "incompatibility" with existing licenses is a problem. Reread the Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
post you replied to, however. His objection was with calling
"compatibility" with existing licenses a problem. IOW, some companies
deliberately create an incompatible license so code cannot be shared.
Many have accused Sun of doing this with their new license under which
they are sharing Solaris code, deliberately creating a license
incompatible with the GPL so the code cannot be intermingled with that of
Linux. Personally, I think that was one goal, altho another was taking
care of patents, which they seem to have done, but /only/ as long as it's
connected to the Solaris code base, not for open source in general,
unfortunately. Not that I have any particular familiarity with law or the
workings of Sun myself, of course, just based on the reports I've seen.
The idea of course is that Sun wants the PR benefits (they've already
admitted they don't expect much of the usual community code benefits,
because of the license they chose) of an open source license without the
obligation of actually having to in practice share the code with the rest
of the FLOSS community. I believe the intent of the OP was to make it
difficult or impossible for such a deliberately incompatibe license to
gain OSI approval, which anyway doesn't seem in disagreement with what you
stated, after all.
Duncan
Interesting further note in Russ's blog at http://blog.russnelson.com/opensource/osi-presidency-resi... - he has resigned as President of the OSI.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
That's happy. His racism and fringe economic theories were endangering the mission of the OSI. The OSI and open source efforts in general have enough problems without the appearance of being led by crackpots.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Never heard that before. Care to provide references rather than just making those assertions? I'm not contradicting you, I just like to check these kinds of accusations for myself.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
His bizarre economics theories are plastered all over the internet. Try http://angry-economist.russnelson.com/ or http://blog.russnelson.com/economics . As for racism, see the row he incited with his recent thrilling economic essay "Blacks Are Lazy." He pulled it from his own site but Google has the cache.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Hmm, interesting how people react. If you take the trouble to penetrate beneath the perhaps-not-so-apt use of words, you realise he's not anti-anyone, he's making a worthwhile comment about the value of free time, and that rightly understood, laziness can be a virtue. And in these days when there has never been such pressure to compete and perform, let us not say that value is unimportant. See, just one example, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767907698/ .Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Yes, he was making an economic point, not a racist one. But he demonstrated a lack of empathy in wording it the way he did. Someone else might have had the communication skill to make that point without the slightest bit of offensiveness.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Maybe he was trying to make an economic point but he inadvertently revealed his rather racist and, frankly, nonsensical viewpoint. For instance, the piece is centered around the assertion (never justified with evidence) that individuals that are paid less will not work as hard.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Idleness is good
[R]ightly understood, laziness can be a virtue.
I followed your link and gave what I found a good reading over. Although his opinions and perspectives on economics do not cleave strictly to the line of the one or perhaps two major strains of (barely differentiated) economic "schools of thought" in this country, I found little or nothing that could be characterized as bizzare. Similar thoughts, and different ones, are absolutely commonplace in this country. At a minimum, Mr. Nelson does a fair job of structuring his opinions in a sensible, readable manner, which usually is an indicator of a non-bizzare person.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
So, here's where I have a bone to pick with his presentation. I personally represent two causes: Open Source, and Amateur Radio. I have very strong feelings about a number of issues such as church and state, abortion, and gun control. You aren't going to find out what those feelings are. I figure that if you don't like the way I feel about gun control or abortion, you aren't going to listen to what I have to say about Open Source.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
Sorry, but I just had a very very cursory google about David Horowitz, and he really doesn't seem to be innocent of the charge. Most informative: Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412020001
Of course, you could say that this is all a liberal/leftist conspiracy or something.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
I don't think it is a very good example to bring up.... at least for someone you want to defend.
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
Listen Rick, if you write an essay that says "Blacks Are Lazy" (as does Russ, and the "blacks are lazy" phrase remains even after his 10th edition) you are a racist. There is quite a difference between saying someone is lazy, which is a criticism of that person's character, and saying that someone is underincentivized, which is a criticism of the market. The market criticism is barely perceptible through the racist crap. The only explanations are 1) he really is a racist, or 2) he cannot appreciate the nuance between lazy and underincentivized. In either case, I'd rather not have him in a political position leading a group which purports to stand for open source software.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
"jwb" wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
rick@linuxmafia.com
You seem hell-bent on casting a happy light on the essay, so I'll be the first in this flamefest to actually introduce the primary material.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Black people are lazy in that they work less hard than whites. Not only that, but they are rational to be lazy! After black slaves were freed, they worked less. The value of their leisure time (highly valued after a lifetime of slavery) exceeded the pay from their work. Also, ongoing American racism has caused blacks to be paid less than whites.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
"jwb" wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
rick@linuxmafia.com
Since when is "racist" equivalent to "silly"? Either you are trivializing racism or you are defending the essay as not being racist, perhaps because you share those views.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
"bk"
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
"Black people are lazy in that they work less hard than whites."
Defend the non-racist nature of that statement, please.
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
"bk" wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
rick@linuxmafia.com
"Black people are lazy in that they work less hard than whites."
Defend the non-racist nature of that statement, please.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-russ
p.s. I don't really think you are a racist. But I'll bet that the charge stings, doesn't it? Particularly when it's not based on any evidence, and is injust. Do you feel hurt? Angry? Now you know how I feel. Perhaps you'll think with your brain instead of your hormones next time?
he's either a racist or the worst writer in the English language today.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-russ
the "blacks are lazy" phrase remains even after his 10th edition) you are a racist.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-russ
Rick,Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
As far as I can tell the piece was penned on February 7, 2005. The "Jan 1 2001" appears to be spurious. The date is significant because it appears that Russ knew that he was or would be be OSI president when he posted the piece.
I wasn't witness to the defamation campaign as I was at LinuxWorld when this happened. But a Fortune 500 CEO did mention the poorly-worded article to me, with some concern.
Open Source and Free Software spokespeople do have to be concerned about how we are seen.
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
Have you asked him?Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
And I don't think you seriously believe that the piece was written at 00:00 on 1 January 2001.
The response of that CEO and the response I heard indirectly from a VP of a big company was that because of the incident, they didn't want to deal with him any longer.
I believe their response was not to the nature of Russ' comment but to the fact that someone who would make such a comment in a public venue was a major political liability to Open Source.
In the companies where those folks worked, what Russ wrote would have gotten a person fired, and their response to us was "get rid of that guy".
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
Bruce, interesting and pertinent commentary, as always. Thank you for providing useful
additional detail.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
I mean, it's a personal blog, for heaven's sake, the ASCII equivalent of shower-stall karaoke.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
When you reach a particular level of notoriety this becomes a very real problem. And because of that I've learned to conduct myself differently.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-russRuss Nelson proposes new license requirements
rule #1 is: never say anything which sounds bad taken out of context
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
Bruce wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
I figure that if you don't like the way I feel about gun control or abortion, you aren't going to listen to what I have to say about Open Source
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
That statement makes no logical sense. It could be rephrased as:
I figure that if you don't like the way I feel about Open Source or abortion, you aren't going to listen to what I have to say about gun control.
If you've got an opinion - voice it for goodness-sake. Don't let perceived controversy/pressure put you off. If everyone thought like that women wouldn't have the vote, civil rights wouldn't have happened etc etc. Sheesh.
Peter Yellman wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
His bizarre economics theories
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-russ
It seems like every time you get in front of a keyboard you divulge ample evidence of why you're Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
unsuited to being the president of OSI. You needn't continue if this is your highest level of
discourse.
"jwb" wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
rick@linuxmafia.com
You needn't continue if this is your highest level of
discourse.
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
-russ
"jwb" wrote:
Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
Going after the professional suitability of public figures, while speaking as a critic from behind cover of anonymity
Rick Moen wants to make and eat blog cake was: Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements
"akumria" wrote:
And yet another anonymous flamer
rick@linuxmafia.com
One wonders of one should ever speak aloud at all for fear that what one said once upon a time will be used against one in a public spectacle.Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements