| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Bruce Perens and the OSI boardBruce Perens and the OSI boardPosted Mar 24, 2008 18:30 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)Parent article: Bruce Perens and the OSI board Jake, you should point out that the famous license proliferation committee that refused to seat me finally was not able to take any action regarding license proliferation. Also, I'm disappointed that you did not publish much of the interview we had, it was a lot of work for me. Here are parts of two emails some will find relevant: I really was afraid that they could vote in a Microsoft representative, next year if not this. After all, Matt has Microsoft giving the keynote speech at his "Open Source In Business" conference, and OSI is being so close-mouthed about this election that nobody knows who the other candidates are, or even the date of the election. But Mike Tiemann assures me they aren't considering MS, and Matt says he's the only one who actually did consider Microsoft (interesting the way he admits it while denying its possibility). Jake Edge wrote: You have mentioned the four licenses that would take care of all open source license requirements, what is the status of those? Have you specified them somewhere so that folks can look them over, etc? I've been giving my Open Source Governance consulting customers this for some time, minus the political discussion because it doesn't apply to them, but I haven't published it. First, the goals: Meet most business (and non-business) purposes of Open Source. I go into the purposes in explaining the licenses. The licenses must be compatible with each other, so that all of your projects and their derivatives can be mixed with all of your other projects and their derivatives. Protect yourself. The most pressing need to protect yourself, and Open Source in general, is regarding software patents. The need to protect yourself is illustrated best by the JMRI (Java Model Railroad Interface) case. The JMRI developer was using an Artistic license. A manufacturer of model railroad throttles incorporated the JMRI code into his product, and then sued the JMRI author for patent infringement, seeking to prevent that developer from distributing the Open Source to anyone who wasn't using that manufacturer's product. The case hasn't gone entirely well for the JMRI developer because the Artistic license was legally weak. So, if you don't want to be taken advantage of by unsavory characters like that, you'd better have solid patent language in your license. Essentially, you need these licenses: Gift: This license has essentially no strings other than protecting the developer from patent suits by his own users regarding his own software. You use it when you want people to use their software in both proprietary and Open Source code, and you don't want them to worry about the license. For example, if you are trying to push a standard API layer for some task, you might distribute the example code to handle that API under this license so that everybody can use it in both proprietary and Open Source software. Sharing with Rules: This license acts to keep all implementations of the software free by using a strong "reciprocal" provision. If you make a derivative work, you have to give everybody the source code, and the rights to modify, redistribute, use, etc. This is a very important license for businesses that want to make money through dual-licensing, like MySQL. They have the GPL, and then a commercial license that they sell to anyone who doesn't want to have to GPL their derivative work (I'm ignoring issues of MySQL's server-client nature and how the GPL applies to that for the purposes of this example). It keeps your competition from running away with your product, by binding them to be your partner in development. In the volunteer developer community, a strong reciprocal license is often preferred by developers whose motivation is to build up Free Software rather than to assist proprietary software. In-Between: Something between gift and sharing with rules, to require a derivative work of a module to have reciprocal provisions while allowing that work to be bound into a greater product that is proprietary. LGPL is the most-used example of this. It motivates public cooperation from proprietary developers, Software-as-a-Service: The Affero GPL is an example of this, so is the Socialtext license. They are kludges to get around the "ASP problem", the problem of works that are derivative of a reciprocal license but are performed rather than being distributed. They help some vendors maintain a dual-licensing paradigm while producing a software-as-a-service product. You can achieve most purposes in Open Source with this list. The political part is which licenses you pick, not that you pick licenses to do these things. To illustrate, suppose you pick this set:
Gift: BSD This gives you a working set of licenses, pretty compatible with each other, and the text of three of them are very similar so there are really only two licenses to understand, and they have the advantage that they are in very broad use. But some of the community are kicking and screaming because they resent and oppose the GPL and the Free Software Foundation, or something similar. And there are also the problems that BSD doesn't have explicit patent protection language, and the GPL has been criticized for legal ambiguity. So, to resolve the legal ambiguity you go to LGPL3, GPL3, and Affero GPL3. These have been scrutinized by a committee of lawyers from many major corporations and other entities during their development, which is much more than we can say for most other Open Source licenses. So they have more legal solidity. But some component of the community is kicking and screaming even worse because they distrust the GPL3 effort. So, you may have to use licenses that duplicate the effect of LGPL, GPL, and Affero GPL without coming from FSF, to calm down the violent opposition. You craft these licenses carefully to be compatible with the FSF ones. But now you may have had to create more licenses, and you have a new part of the community kicking and screaming because they'd rather you used the FSF ones. And somewhere in there you have to find a version of the BSD license with better patent protection, which may get the BSD folks upset, even though you are doing this for their own protection. So, that's the political problem. The assignment is to navigate your way through this, satisfying a lot of people but NOT getting a complete consensus. Then evangelize the result and try to gently influence people to use your minimal combination rather than all 70 licenses out there at the moment. I think it could work pretty well. Never perfectly. Bruce Perens
(Log in to post comments)
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 24, 2008 18:47 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] But there is no "GPL", Bruce. There is version 2 of the GPL, and version 3. There are also many works licensed as "GPL version 2, or any later version". However, without the "any later version" clause, GPL versions 2 and 3 are not compatible.Your recommendation for mutually compatible licensing would suggest a recommendation of "GPL v2 or later" (or, at least, GPL2 || GPL3) for those wanting maximal compatibility together with copyleft. But your message here suggests that Mike Tiemann is correct in saying that you are oversimplifying.
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 24, 2008 18:58 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Joe,Obviously the problem is picking just one. In doing this, you have to consider who is most likely to be influenced by a campaign to use just four licenses for all of your Open Source work. Obviously, new projects are the easiest ones to influence. For old projects that have removed the "or any later version" text to relicense is much more difficult and I'm not going to push them to do that. So, what license of GPL1, GPL2.*, or GPL3 would you recommend that new projects use? Obviously GPL3. Bruce
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 25, 2008 23:52 UTC (Tue) by raboofje (guest, #26972) [Link] what license of GPL1, GPL2.*, or GPL3 would you recommend that new projects use? Obviously GPL3.Without wishing to start a flame war, I don't think this choice is all that obvious. Personally, I don't want my software to be 'protected' against 'tivoization': that's perfectly fair use to me. On the other hand, I think things like the 'smooth path to compliance' rules in GPLv3 are a considerable improvement over GPLv2. I don't think the choice is obvious. I, for one, haven't made up my mind.
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:08 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Without wishing to start a flame war, I don't think this choice is all that obvious. Personally, I don't want my software to be 'protected' against 'tivoization': that's perfectly fair use to me.That's fine. You are welcome to waive that term regarding your own work.
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:25 UTC (Wed) by raboofje (guest, #26972) [Link] You are welcome to waive that term regarding your own work.Wouldn't that render my work incompatible with any code under the unmodified GPLv3? Seems like license proliferation on the micro-scale to me...
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:33 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Wouldn't that render my work incompatible with any code under the unmodified GPLv3? No. You are welcome to give people more rights. It's just taking them away that is a problem. But you do not have the right to force the copyright holders of any other GPLv3 software to give away more rights too. So, if you have made a contribution to a larger work, the fact that you give away more rights to your part of that work may not be very useful to others. You might be able to operate a project where waiving that particular right is the rule for the whole project. You could simply refuse to accept any code that didn't have that right waived. Of course, people could make a fork if they didn't like that. Bruce
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 27, 2008 1:47 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] it just means that someone can take your code and combine it with GPLv3 code and remove the permission that you granted. if you just use GPLv2 (without or later) your code cannot be (ab)used this way. believe it or not Bruce, many people aren't happy with others taking their code and putting more restrictive licenses on the resulting work and will pick a license that doesn't allow that
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 27, 2008 2:01 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] believe it or not Bruce, many people aren't happy with others taking their code and putting more restrictive licenses on the resulting workI understand. It's my honest opinion that whatever is chosen, somebody would be unhappy with the choice. In this case I think that more people are going to be willing to put up with the tivo stuff in order to have a license that went through that high a degree of legal review. Thanks Bruce
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 27, 2008 12:52 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] > it just means that someone can take your code and combine it with GPLv3 code and > remove the permission that you granted. In the combined work, yes, but in your code, no. You granted the permission to tivoize your code, your permission is there, latent. If I take _your_ code and put in my TiVoSX, but not the code that the other author does not want tivoized, it's ok. That is the beauty of the GPLv3+waivers: Your code: GPLv3 + waiver tivoizing My code: GPLv3 Combined code: GPLv3 If anyone wants to tivoize your code, _nothing_ will stop them. Your wishes regarding _your_ code are _always_ respected. Now, your wishes regarding _my_ code...
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:54 UTC (Wed) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] And that, boys and girls, is what polite people describe as proof by assertion...
GPL versions not such a big deal Posted Mar 26, 2008 3:12 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Would you like to engage in argument, or just contradiction?
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 24, 2008 20:17 UTC (Mon) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] So MIT wouldn't be covered? So using X wouldn't be an approved software? Apache isn't free either? And why not these? And at what level does OSI become irrelevant because huge sections of what people use isn't considered open/free/libre enough? [This is the opposite of the other question which I would say "no to: Is OSI relevant because it has accepted every license under the sun?] And if in the end you are elected, what then? Will you see through the entire lifetime of your seat even if you aren't able to get enough others to vote for your views? What I am trying to see is what is your real committment, and what are you really trying to achieve. Is it to represent the people who sign your petition (whether they completely agree with you or not), or is it more of a protest campaign where you are going to try and get enough 'outrage' to set up some sort of rival organization. Not that doing so would be a bad idea, but I would prefer to have it in the open.
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 24, 2008 22:35 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] So MIT wouldn't be covered? So using X wouldn't be an approved software? Apache isn't free either?MIT and Apache licenses would continue to work exactly the way they do today, and would be considered OSI Certified. I would think that even the Apache Foundation would appreciate the need to focus on one MIT-BSD-Apache like license for the future rather than some large number of them. That's for the future, not asking for anyone's present practice to change but making a strong recommendation for new projects. Maybe they'd help. Regarding the seat, I haven't walked off of a position in a long time. People don't seem to appreciate it even when it's done for the best reasons, and maybe I'm a bit wiser than I was then. I think being a dad has helped, as I have things more important than Open Source in my life now and can thus have more perspective. I was on the W3C patent policy board with Microsoft. That was harder than this would be. We got the job done. Bruce
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 25, 2008 19:46 UTC (Tue) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Thankyou for the clarifications. And yes, we all have grown up in the last 10+ years...
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 24, 2008 22:57 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Is it to represent the people who sign your petition (whether they completely agree with you or not), or is it more of a protest campaign where you are going to try and get enough 'outrage' to set up some sort of rival organization. Not that doing so would be a bad idea, but I would prefer to have it in the open.I am not planning to set up an alternative organization to OSI. I would consider promoting the 4-license thing without their help, though.
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 24, 2008 23:50 UTC (Mon) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] Gift: BSD Maybe you should try to join the FSF instead of the OSI. The FSF already promotes a set of 4 licenses and to use compatible licenses: GPL, LGPL, Affero GPL and in some cases BSD-style licenses (afaik e.g. to push a standard like Ogg Vorbis). OK, you would have to talk about Free Software instead of Open Source. But as you said already 1999: "It's Time to Talk about Free Software Again"
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 25, 2008 0:03 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] You mean the FSF BOARD??? That's a lot more difficult to get on than OSI's board.I am already an FSF associate member. Fortunately, today nobody at OSI is running a campaign to deprecate Richard Stallman any longer. That was the problem in 1999. Bruce
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 25, 2008 0:20 UTC (Tue) by pinky0x51 (guest, #40742) [Link] I don't know the internal structure of the FSF and how hard it is to get on the Board. But i thought that for you the topics (e.g. license proliferation.) is the important part and not your position in an organisation. I think you could find more like-minded people in the FSF than in the OSI for this topic. So i think you could at least work with them together in promoting such a set of licenses. If they will offer you a place in the board and when they will do it depends probably on how satisfied they are with your work but this should be an minor point, shouldn't it? It's the work which is important not the position.
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 25, 2008 4:42 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] I think you could find more like-minded people in the FSF than in the OSI for this topic.It would be very comfortable for me to work with the general FSF membership, because I appreciate the need for Freedom, as they do. If you think I can be prickly, you haven't worked with the FSF leadership. I hold Richard very highly, but he is the world's most difficult person to be friends with. But we're not really discussing the mission I have set myself, which is to be a bridge from people who fully appreciate the Free Software movement to people who don't. Participating in "Open Source" lets me get to them. And eventually a lot of them realize that Stallman was right, but they certainly don't start out that way. Bruce
Tackling proliferation Posted Mar 25, 2008 3:10 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Bruce, I received your request for help but didn't sign it because I didn't really see the problem with OSI: nowadays it approves licenses and otherwise keeps a low profile. Now that I have read your extended description, it seems that this blind approving of licenses is precisely one of the issues you have. Please excuse or ignore this lengthy message, but I think your message is well worth an in-depth response.Correct me if I'm wrong: you want OSI to have not just the "OSI-certified" label, but a new "OSI-recommended" badge for a limited set of (four) licenses. That is actually a very good idea, and something that should have come out of the license proliferation committee if at all possible. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Which licenses do you select for this recommended set? In your most interesting message you suggest a set of exactly four licenses: in FSF terminology they would be permissive non-copyleft (as BSD), weak copyleft (LGPL), strong copyleft (GPL) and strong interactive copyleft (AfferoGPL). However, whether it is better to go with existing licenses (essentially as FSF recommends) or to craft new ones (responding to specific concerns) is left open. So let us discuss both scenarios with a couple of thought experiments and see where we get. First, what if OSI goes with new licenses and creates them. Responding to license proliferation with even more license proliferation, in the form of four new licenses, is probably not going to be well received. And besides: similar efforts in the past have all failed to make an impact against the workhorse of free software licenses, the GPL. So in all likelihood this effort will probably be ignored by all major players, who seem to be already happy with what they have, and so will leave OSI recommending four licenses which nobody uses. Hardly the way to make OSI more relevant than they are today. Then, we are left with what if OSI recommends BSD and three GPLv3 derivatives, which you imply fit essentially all of the requirements. As another commenter suggests, OSI would then recommend essentially the same licenses as the FSF. But this was already tried by the proliferation committee: in their report they state their initial intent to do exactly this, and how they failed. In their words: Originally, the LP Committee started to divide the OSI approved licenses into "recommended," "non-recommended" and "other" tiers. The committee concluded, however, that any such normative characterization would properly be a matter for policy matter for the OSI Board to decide.So, "a matter for policy matter"... or in plain English: OSI didn't want to step on any toes. The first problem is why recommend one license over another where some equally good candidates exist. From your analysis it would seem that your set of four is perfectly rounded, with maybe a few details to discuss, e.g.: maybe Apache 2.0 should be preferred over BSD. But there is a gaping hole in your criteria: what here on LWN was reported as "a commercial version of the GPL". This is where things get really hairy. This license is not simply weak copyleft: as with the MPL, portions of the code can be incorporated into proprietary works on a file-by-file basis, and continue being free software. As Russ Nelson explained in that same LWN interview: CDDL. Or more properly, the MPL, since it already has traction in the community (clearly, since Sun wrote the CDDL based on the MPL). A lot of licenses are derived from the MPL. If we can figure out why they derived the MPL rather than using it, we can fix the problem in the MPL that caused them to do that.There is obviously a need for this kind of license since a few of them have been proposed. Note that in OSI's report, the "recommended" category (which finally was "Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities") lists four candidates for this "commercial GPL": MPL, CDDL, CPL and EclipsePL. Apparently the committee couldn't "figure out why they derived the MPL rather than using it" and so included all of them. The report also recommends three permissive non-copyleft: BSD, MIT and Apache 2.0, presumably trying once more to avoid to step on any toes. And then there is a second toe-stepping problem: there were other special interests which didn't fit into a limited license set (like your four licenses plus "commercial GPL"). Who is the OSI anyway to decide what commercial interests are? In the end they reported on seven convoluted categories, and as could be expected never got anywhere. But this cannot be blamed on OSI. Either you get knee-deep into "matters for policy matters", as the FSF, and step on whatever toes are necessary, with the consequences we all know; or you are left with convoluted categories and bland policy statements. I'm not so sure there is a middle road. So, I'm left wondering what you would do if you were in OSI that would make any difference.
Tackling proliferation Posted Mar 25, 2008 4:33 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Correct me if I'm wrong: you want OSI to have not just the "OSI-certified" label, but a new "OSI-recommended" badge for a limited set of (four) licenses. That's right. Responding to license proliferation with even more license proliferation, in the form of four new licenses, is probably not going to be well received. I wouldn't like it either. [Quoting the report] The committee concluded, however, that any such normative characterization would properly be a matter for policy matter for the OSI Board to decide. That sounds right. So, I'm left wondering what you would do if you were in OSI that would make any difference. Get them to lead. Get them to tell everybody we know this is going to offend some people, but those people are free to use the OSI-approved licenses they already like, and by recommending this set we take the strongest possible step to set the license-proliferation problem on the path to being a diminishing problem in the future. This is the best we can do to make that happen. And then have them stick to their guns.Thanks Bruce
Tackling proliferation Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:43 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Thanks. After reading these messages (along with the clarification below that LGPLv3 solves the "commercial GPL" license problem) I have now signed the petition.
Tackling proliferation Posted Mar 26, 2008 17:39 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Thanks!Bruce
Commercial GPL? Posted Mar 25, 2008 5:41 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Just what is a ``commercial GPL''? What is its intent?I've read the MPL a time or two, but my eyes glazed over. I'd appreciate a brief ``compare and contrast'' of the MPL vs. the GPLv2. Thanks.
Commercial GPL? Posted Mar 25, 2008 6:09 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] As far as I can tell, LGPL3 achieves all of its goals. Allow software to be linked into proprietary works and still remain free on a file-by-file basis.Bruce
Bruce Perens and the OSI board Posted Mar 26, 2008 1:56 UTC (Wed) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] > So, to resolve the legal ambiguity you go to LGPL3, GPL3, and Affero > GPL3... Not that I care about your quest to make OSI even more irrelevant by joining it, but the irony of you joining an advocacy organization is just too much. You are the reason I will never write any code under GPL version 3. Before encountering you, I merely thought GPLv3 was a bad idea that I could ignore. Your misguided and aggressive trolling of the busybox list (a full decade after you'd abandoned the project, never posting _once_ to that list until you came back as a troll) is what pushed me over the edge to actively work _against_ GPLv3. These days, I license all my code GPLv2 only, the same license as the Linux kernel. My code _cannot_ be used under the terms of GPLv3, and never will. Although I was never likely to leave GPLv2 behind, you're the one who convinced me to drop the "or later". Because you advocated for GPLv3 _that_badly_. And now you want to join the board of an advocacy organization? Dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Maturity (or lack thereof) Posted Mar 26, 2008 17:26 UTC (Wed) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] So you admit that you go out of your way to oppose a license for reasons of petty spite. That's not as impressive as you seem to think.
Maturity (or lack thereof) Posted Mar 27, 2008 17:36 UTC (Thu) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] I thought GPLv3 was a bad idea for day 1, long before Bruce showed up. Primarily I thought it was unnecessary, divisive, and an order of magnitude more complicated than its predecessor (which is a big down side all on its own). He didn't change my mind on that. I just wasn't motivated to _do_ anything about it, and was happy to ignore it the way I ignore other licenses (like the CDDL) that I consider a bad idea. Bruce's attempt to advocate in favor of GPLv3 failed so spectacularly it left me motivated to actively oppose GPLv3. His advocacy backfired. The _point_ of my post was that he's not planning to join an advocacy organization to increase the scope of the damage he can do, and alienate more people. However, I expect the actual _effect_ of this would be to cause OSI to collase into complete dysfunctional irrelevance in a few years, due to the kind of infighting Debian suffered in the decade or so after Bruce's leadership of that project. So it probably doesn't really _matter_. I just found it ironic.
Another Fine Rant Posted Mar 28, 2008 18:00 UTC (Fri) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Yes, yes, yes. I gathered all that from your previous rant. I also noticed that you admitted -- twice now -- that you were planning to do nothing about the GPLv3 until Bruce Perens ticked you off. I'm having trouble imagining the Free Software Foundation trembling in fear of your wrath, but your motivation is clearly petty spite. Since you're wandering off topic at length I'll take the liberty of debunking two of your more bizarre distortions. First, characterizing Perens' activity on the BusyBox list as "advocacy" is a stretch. As I read it he was objecting the removal of the "or later" clause from a project based on his original work and arguments about the merits of the GPLv3 were a side issue. Second, Debian has had infighting for as long as it has been around. Consider what's going on around dpkg for a recent example. Laying this at the feet of Bruce Perens is silly. For someone so concerned with what makes effective advocacy, you seem blissfully unaware of the effect all this foaming at the mouth has on your own credibility.
On the shoulders of Perens and yet kicking his head Posted Mar 27, 2008 1:07 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] From your link:The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge tend to think that they know more than they do, while others who have much more knowledge tend to think that they know less.I gather that you are accusing Bruce of having little knowledge while thinking he knows a lot. I don't doubt that you have done a lot for Busybox and helped it to be a hit, but you are aware that he started the project, aren't you?
On the shoulders of Perens and yet kicking his head Posted Mar 27, 2008 18:07 UTC (Thu) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] > I gather that you are accusing Bruce of having little knowledge while > thinking he knows a lot. No, I'm using the formulation that uses "skill" instead of knowledge. You can be a quite well-informed klutz. Neither programmers nor lawyers (similar but distinct skill sets) necessarily make good good advocates (essentially a marketing position) or project managers. (Heck, Transmeta made Linus Torvalds a manager and had people reporting to him, and by his own admission he sucked at it. Open source project management and corporate middle management are different skills.) Am I the only one to remember Bruce's tenure at HP? That he was on the OSI board before and that the actions leading to his resignation involved describing Tim O'Reilley as "one of the leading parisites (sic) of the free software community"? Did anyone actually read his Debian resignation letter (http://lwn.net/lwn/1998/0319/resign.html) in the context that A) none of the "more mainstream" distributions he felt he "should be working with" paid him any attention, and B) since then both Knoppix and Ubuntu have made new mainstream distributions based on Debian. Looking at the past full decade of his attempts at this advocacy thing: he's shown much motivation, a reasonable amount of knowledge, and very little skill. This has nothing to do with how well he might program. Al Viro and Cristoph Hellwig are both great programmers, would either of them be your first choice for a public relations position? Rob
Advocacy turned wrong Posted Mar 27, 2008 23:57 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Oh well. That is a massive body of evidence you present: (Bruce tried to advocate for GPLv3 on a mailing list and it backfired on you, whose best man actually did threaten to kill him a decade ago. But let me point out this anecdotal piece of evidence: he has so far convinced 1820 people to sign his online petition, many of which were impartial to his particular plead (at least I know I was).Wait, and then instead of being hired by a major distro like Ubuntu he has worked for Pixar, HP and founded several companies? What a loser! I'm feeling this strange urge to wipe out every GPLv2-only package from my hard disk. Anybody know how to turn Debian lenny into Nexenta?... just joking.
On the shoulders of Perens and yet kicking his head Posted Mar 30, 2008 20:10 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Can't say I agree with your tone, Rob, but I do think your message has merit. UserLinux was another particularly salient example.
|
|
||||||||||||