Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements [LWN.net]

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 3, 2005 2:37 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)
In reply to: Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements by rickmoen
Parent article: Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Rick,

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

(Log in to post comments)

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 3, 2005 3:26 UTC (Thu) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Open Source and Free Software spokespeople do have to be concerned about how we are seen.

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.

-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

Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:04 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

Have you asked him?

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

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:22 UTC (Thu) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]

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.

And I don't think you seriously believe that the piece was written at 00:00 on 1 January 2001.

Heh. I didn't think much of the date, but I didn't notice the time.

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.

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 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.

I still think it was overblown given the personal nature of the blog, public or not.

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".

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.

-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

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.

-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

Posted Mar 3, 2005 5:12 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link]

I mean, it's a personal blog, for heaven's sake, the ASCII equivalent of shower-stall karaoke.

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

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:07 UTC (Thu) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]

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.

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.
-russ

Russ Nelson proposes new license requirements

Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:45 UTC (Thu) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link]

rule #1 is: never say anything which sounds bad taken out of context

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.

-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

Posted Mar 3, 2005 6:36 UTC (Thu) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link]

Bruce wrote:

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,
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com