Interview: OSI's new president

[Posted February 2, 2005 by corbet]

On January 31, the Open Source Initiative announced an expansion of its efforts and the appointment of Russ Nelson as its president. Mr. Nelson was kind enough to answer a few questions from LWN on the OSI and where he thinks it is headed. The questions, and his answers, can be found below. We thank Russ for taking the time to fill us in.

LWN: So you're the new president of OSI. Why did you take on that role, and where do you anticipate taking the OSI in the near future?

To Infinity ... and Beyond!

No, wait, that's Bruce Perens' line [Bruce worked for Pixar and is in the Toy Story credits].

Never before in history have we had a time when one person of ordinary intelligence can write a program which becomes used by half the worldwide computer-using population. This creates so many problems between countries that I really feel they have to be addressed with a treaty.

I think that the end goal is an international treaty concerning Open Source. Just to take one tiny portion of that issue: today somebody asked us for an "official Spanish version de license MIT". We can't do that. I mean, we could translate it (or more properly find a volunteer to translate it and publish it on opensource.org), but the problem is that almost certainly the author of the MIT-licensed software didn't give us permission to license his software under the Spanish-language MIT license.

In many ways, the OSI appears to have fallen from view. Until this news hit, the most recent item listed on the front page was dated October, 2001. The OSI gets called upon to put its stamp on a license occasionally; what else does the OSI do now? Is it relevant to the free software development process, and how?

When were we ever relevant to the free software development process? We've always been an education/advocacy group. If you're already convinced that open source is a good thing, what more would we say to you? Really, the only time somebody inside the open source community needs to be concerned with us is when they talk to someone outside the community. If that person needs to be whupped around a little, send 'em to us and we'll give 'em what for.

We continue to do what we've always done: talk to people about open source. Calm their fears, and renew their hopes.

The press release states that OSI will set out on "the establishment of principles of Open Source development and best practices" and "the creation of a registry of software projects that adhere to those principles." What need is driving the creation of these principles and the associated registry?

I believe that there is such a thing as an "Open Source effect". That effect requires more than just a license that complies with the Open Source Definition (OSD). We need to be more clear about that, because we sometimes have people who come along and want to create a license which complies with the letter of the OSD but not the spirit. The trouble is that the benefits come with the spirit. We need to do a better job of codifying the spirit.

When you talk about "inclusion of international perspectives and initiatives related to Open Source," what do you mean?

Working towards the end goal (as above) and adding board members from outside the US. We're starting to get some non-US, non-Europe (if you look at the map of locations of Debian developers, there are a LOT of them in Europe) countries that are signing on to open source in a BIG way. Take Brazil for example. We need better representation in those countries.

Why does the OSI need *two* legal counselors? What do they do?

Why does a computer need *two* power supplies? We felt that the job had grown to the point that one sole-proprietor lawyer (Larry Rosen) couldn't do the job anymore, and Larry's open source practice had expanded. It's possible that one law-firm lawyer could have brought in enough resources, but we wanted to share the work. In essence, Mark is inward-facing and Laura is outward-facing. She has been on the license-discuss mailing list for years now. She has also started to help with legally-oriented correspondence. Mark will help us with, among other things, registering the OSI-Certified mark, and with overhauling our bylaws.

How will the new OSI board members be selected? In general, how is the OSI kept accountable to the community it hopes to represent?

We are still a small, self-selecting board. We expect to change that in some way, but the details are still in the air. Having a larger board will take us in that direction no matter what.

How do you expect OSI to work with other free software-oriented groups, such as OSDL and the FSF? Will there be more cooperation in the future?

CAGE MATCH!! BLOOD, GORE, AND DEATH! Er, um, sorry. We had a dinner last summer with OSDL to talk about license proliferation issues. We are on cordial relations with the FSF, AND EXPECT TO TAKE THEM OVER SHORTLY! Sorry, I must apologize for all these capital letters. I don't know where they're coming from. I'll be in Boston in a couple of weeks for Linux World. I expect that I'll run into Bradley Kuhn and HE'LL DIE we'll talk about further ways in which the OSI and FSF could cooperate. I know of no reason why any animosities between us cannot be overcome AND CRUSHED LIKE A BUG.

Is there anything else which you would like to communicate to LWN readers?

Is this the point at which I add various mealy-mouthed corporate statements?

I think it's great to be President of the OSI at this point in time. We've had a strong president in Eric Raymond who took us from nothing to a highly respected member of the open source community. As corporations and governments come to be part of the community, we have to double and redouble our educational and advocacy efforts. We need to make sure that corporations know how to work with individual developers, and that governments know how to set the rules so everybody can work together. And we have to squash software patents, but that's a different interview.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 1:31 UTC (Wed) by shapr (subscriber, #9077) [Link]

Enjoyable positive energy. I look forward to the squashing of software patents.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 3:28 UTC (Wed) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (10 responses)

Not so sure on this guy, he regularly posts in Slashdot and comes across as a little snarky and sometimes flat-out mean...in my opinion if you are going to be a leader you have to chose to simply ignore and rise above 99% of comments, emails, postings...otherwise you get drawn into these debates that always end with personal jabs. Wading hip-deep into Slashdot flame fests can only damage a reputation, particularly if you chose to use your real name (not advised). Already he has posted several times in the Slashdot story about his own appointment, which I can say with full certainty is ill-advised.

That said, he can only be better than ESR. Eric made good arguments from time to time and is clearly intelligent, but there is this other side to him that is straight-up creepy...and unfortunately the creepy side is in full public view on his website.

In any case its not clear what OSI's role is anymore, outside the obvious arbiter of licenses. Maybe Russ can make it relevant again, who knows.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 3:49 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] (4 responses)

Wading hip-deep into Slashdot flame fests can only damage a reputation, particularly if you chose to use your real name (not advised). Already he has posted several times in the Slashdot story about his own appointment, which I can say with full certainty is ill-advised.

This is kinda amusing coming from someone named "b7j0c". While getting into flamewars is probably not the _best_ habit, I respect someone who uses their real name a lot more than I would if I knew that person was nice with their public identity but "snarky" (as you say) all day long under a handle.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 6:26 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (3 responses)

"slaves only paid a quarter"? Wow.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 7, 2005 16:00 UTC (Mon) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] (2 responses)

"slaves only paid a quarter"? Wow. Put on your economist's hat, Joe (if you have one). The slaves worked, and they were compensated for their work with food, clothing, and shelter. That's a form of pay; low pay to be sure, but compensation for work. More on this topic at my blog: http://angry-economist.russnelson.com -russ

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 10, 2005 10:22 UTC (Thu) by zerblat (guest, #644) [Link] (1 responses)

That doesn't make sense to me (but then, I don't have an economist's hat, thankfully). Slaves aren't compensated, they are provided with whatever they require to stay alive and healthy enough to work. Or perhaps you compensate your car for its valuble service of taking you from A to B by paying it in the form of gas, oil and whatever maintainance it needs?

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 10, 2005 15:27 UTC (Thu) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]

I don't have an economist's hat, thankfully.

Wow. That's a really weird thing to say. If you said "I don't have an mathematician's hat, but I really think that 2+2=5", a lot of readers would say "yeah, that follows logically, you would think that". If you don't know anything about economics, then you should expect your economic reasoning to be little better than guessing.

Getting to your point, if slaves were indeed machines (the analogy you make), that is how you would look at it economically. But slaves weren't machines. They were able to withdraw their labor for reasons unrelated to their bodily maintenance. Cars don't do that, so your analogy falls down. Slaves would sabotage their work, work poorly, pretend to be stupid, pretend to not speak English, or even remove their entire work product by escaping temporarily or permanently. All of those took courage, and were the result of human choice. Slaves were people; some of them accepted their lot, and others struggled against it until the day they died, or were killed. Slaves that worked chose to work; alternatives were available to them. They weren't good alternatives, but they sometimes they were better than working. You have to conclude that because slaves (who knew their choices better than you or I) sometimes made that choice. You have to consider their maintenance as wages from an economic analysis of slavery.

There are still slaves today even though many nations have outlawed slavery. If you are concerned about slavery, go read Free The Slaves's website. Modern slavery is typically of a different form than the American outright ownership of a person. It typically uses debtor's laws, and the slave's moral unwillingness to repudiate a debt, to keep the slave under control. The slave is induced, by force or by fraud, to enter into a situation where they require credit to get a job. For example, they have to pay for a bus ride to get to a remote workplace, and once there, they cannot take a different job. Once they owe money, they are kept from ever paying back that debt. It's a nasty, nasty situation.

Russ Nelson quotes from Slashdot article

Posted Feb 2, 2005 6:11 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] (2 responses)

I didn't know anything about Russ Nelson before today, so I'm just looking through a few of his posts on Slashdot to get it from the horse's mouth. Here are a few of the things he wrote (trying to sample all of the substantive comments, omitting jokes...no particular order):

here: You've just put your finger on why the patent system is so evil (or, more technically, its costs exceed its benefits): because ideas are reinvented all the time. Rewards for inventing go, not to the inventor who has filed a patent, but to the inventor who gets his invention into the marketplace. A patent helps but slightly in that process even in the best hopes of the theory.
here: My point remains. Generally Americans are happy to let others live and let live. The American government, on the other hand, is a lot less tolerant. Lemme see, Trail of Tears: yup, US Federal Government policy of "Indian removal."
here: It [open source]has become more than a merely descriptive phrase, though. It has become a well known term; a trademark if even I may say. If you talk about Open Source Software, people know that you are referring to a specific class of software, all of which have licenses approved by OSI. There is cause and effect here between our promotion of the term, and people's use of it. Very early on, I heard the term, felt it to be more accurate than "Free Software" (after all, it's not about price, it's about openness), and adopted it for my own software, long before I was elected to the board of OSI.
here: It's not that freedom has ever been a non issue or a side issue. How could you have open source software without freedom? It's that we haven't tried to sell the idea of freedom in the way that RMS does. In a world where the citizens of most developed nations have half their incomes wrested from them by the state (slaves only paid about a quarter, effectively), how widely supported do you think the idea of "freedom" is? Look at the recent report about American high school students having almost no respect for the first amendment? In a world where there still exist ANY people who think socialism is a good thing (hello slashdot posters!), it's too risky to tie the acceptance of open source to the acceptance of freedom. The first, you see, is the reality of freedom; the second is the naming of it. I'd rather have a pound of gold and not know what to call it, than to have a piece of paper with the words "a pound of gold" written on them. The thing is not the name and never has been (outside certain fantasy books about magic, of course).
here: I'm just frustrated with RMS. I've tried to explain differently to him for, well, for years now. He continues to contend that open source is just a development methodology whereas free software has a philosophical basis. I was just reading in Reason Magazine today that Ayn Rand didn't like libertarians because they didn't have an epistemology explaining WHY they were libertarians. Who cares why you prefer freedom? The fact of the matter is that open source is inseparable from free software. Give up the one and you lose the other. So what is RMS worried about? I don't understand.
here: I think you've been drinking too much of the kook-aid that RMS has been handing out.
here: Sun's patent-encumbered license? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't think you understand what you're talking about either. Maybe you should explain it to both of us. Remember that I'm not very smart, so please use small words.
If the CDDL is a weapon against free software, why isn't the Mozilla license a weapon against free software? The two of them differ only slightly.

CDDL lures

Posted Feb 3, 2005 1:11 UTC (Thu) by grouch (guest, #27289) [Link] (1 responses)

"If the CDDL is a weapon against free software, why isn't the Mozilla license a weapon against free software? The two of them differ only slightly."

A rattlesnake and a garter snake differ only slightly, too. How many Mozilla software patents have been promised to open source developers? The little difference between the Mozilla license and the CDDL is all about patents. CDDL allows Sun to cuddle up to developers without disclosing information about patents, which is what that clause deals with that appears in the Mozilla license but which was left out of CDDL.

CDDL lures

Posted Feb 7, 2005 16:36 UTC (Mon) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]

CDDL allows Sun to cuddle up to developers without disclosing information about patents

Sun's opinion is that that matter is better addressed in the contribution agreement. When you give software to them, they'll have an agreement between you and them for the use and disposition of that code. You should expect to see that agreement address patents. They hear your concerns and intend to address them. Write some code for Open Solaris, contribute it to Sun, and see if you're still unhappy.
-russ

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 3, 2005 4:19 UTC (Thu) by lm (guest, #6402) [Link] (1 responses)

For what it is worth, which isn't much, I've been around in this community
for at least 10 years and I tend to think that Russ is a good guy. He's
more "reasonable" than ESR in my opinion.

On the other hand, I'm the guy who brought you BitKeeper with that oh so
awful license so salt heavily.

--lm

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 3, 2005 10:23 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

For what it is worth, which isn't much, I've been around in this community for at least 10 years and I tend to think that Russ is a good guy. He's more "reasonable" than ESR in my opinion.

For what it's worth (and it's far less than what your word is worth), I agree. ESR has a habit of ranting in public in a frighteningly serious manner about subjects on which his opinions are extreme even for US society and outright loony in the rest of the Western world. Russ is less over the top, generally keeps his politics a bit quieter, and uses humour to try to keep things from turning into flamewars. That counts for a lot, I think. :)

This is not to say that ESR is any sort of `bad person' (he's not; even though his opinions are extreme, they're not dangerous) or that there's anything wrong with his expressing his opinion, but when you're in a (semi?) public role like OSI president, it helps not to do things that actively frighten away people who should be your friends.

On the other hand, I'm the guy who brought you BitKeeper with that oh so awful license so salt heavily.

Said license has already led to the total destruction of all other version control programs, the banning of discussion of version control by anyone whose surname does not start with the letters M and c, and the disintegration of society as we know it. Hadn't you noticed? :)

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 5:30 UTC (Wed) by mark (guest, #1921) [Link] (9 responses)

"The economist is here, and boy is he pissed."

I was unfortunate enough to share a mailing list with this guy. In response to certain types of questions, he would often post incomplete script fragments, with the offer to finish the code - for a fee. Whilst this behaviour is completely within his rights, shamelessly profiteering on a software user's mailing list is not what I would have expected from someone who is to be a champion of "open source" software.

In fact, Russ Nelson appears, from my reading of his angry economist blog, to be an anarcho-capitalist - or, at least, far right of center, economically speaking. I'm not sure how this can benefit a social organisation such as the "open source" movement. I find the structure of his arguments and the nature of his assumptions on his web site to be mildly alarming.

The shouting in the interview is just strange.

After reading his manifesto and other documents, I formed a great deal of respect for Richard Stallman, but the OSI just leaves me cold. Russ Nelson, his odd interview, and weird pseudo- economics just don't do it for me, and I'm very glad that the FSF is the more influential organisation of the two.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 6:01 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

This is no different than the ultra-capitalist Libertarian (big L) opinions of ESR. The OSI has (regrettably) never been about a social movement. Don't ask me what it has been about though, I haven't quite figured that out yet either...

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 9:57 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (6 responses)

The shouting in the interview is just strange.

I think it was meant to be humorous (certainly I found it so, although a tad out of place).

His political opinions are odd, but the OSI has always been packed with people with strange political opinions (hell, so's the whole open source/free software movement: probably because we think for ourselves, we end up with a higher proportion of unusual beliefs than those that follow the crowd).

(I still think that decrying socialism is strange, given that it continues to be the philosophical backbone of many powerful European political groupings, and Europe not only has not collapsed but has spent much of the past sixty years *anti*-collapsing. I consider this conflation of socialism and communist dictatorships simply a peculiarity of many people brought up in the US, and otherwise ignore it.)

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 3, 2005 3:40 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]

I actually thought the shouting and not-so-funny jokes were immature and, frankly, annoying. But maybe I just didn't get it. Perhaps the OSI could use an image consultant.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 3, 2005 16:22 UTC (Thu) by mcopple (subscriber, #2920) [Link] (1 responses)

It was certainly meant to be humorous, but I would think someone serious about furthering the adoption of open source would be more, uhm, professional.

I respect the fact that he does not wish to be seen as a "mealy-mouthed corporate" type, but a little professionalism now and then is a good thing.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 3, 2005 16:41 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link]

On the other hand, this was an interview that he knew was going to be read by a friendly (and generally informal) audience.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 7, 2005 16:40 UTC (Mon) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]

probably because we think for ourselves, we end up with a higher proportion of unusual beliefs than those that follow the crowd

Yes! This is good!

I still think that decrying socialism is strange,

Read Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_. Hayek was not brought up in the US. Neither was von Mises.
-russ

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 10, 2005 13:45 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I expect Russ is American...

Speaking as a European, I just don't see how Free/Open Software people can be anti-socialist!

Something like linux is a pretty pure form of Popular Socialism (that is, socialism by the people for the people of the people. Where we do it ourselves because we see it is to our personal advantage to share).

Yup, if you equate socialism and Communism, yes I can see where he's coming from. The trouble with America today, as I see it, is it's becoming a fascist state - government of the people, by the corporation for the corporation. Lets hope America rediscovers its SOCIALIST roots again, with things like barn-raisings etc etc.

Cheers,
Wol

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 10, 2005 20:53 UTC (Thu) by Brandybuck (guest, #27827) [Link]

Linux is voluntary, socialism is not. Perhaps you meant to use a different word, but when I hear "socialism" the first thing I think of is Karl Marx and a whole slew of political philosophers who argue for state control/ownership of the means/fruits of production.

Free Software is about freely sharing your code, which is a completely different thing from socialism. Free Software does not have a state. There is no government to ensure that people give their fair share of code. No one gets fined if they don't give enough code. There are no bureacracies to determine where best to allocate code contributions. Free Software works because it is about freedom, and not about central management by the state.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 7, 2005 16:17 UTC (Mon) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]

he would often post incomplete script fragments,

Actually, complete scripts, but untested (and I would be happy to provide them as a solution for a fee). One of the good things about the non-open-source qmail on which I made my living for a number of years is that with the inability to redistribute modified versions of qmail, everything about an installation is known. So, in order to help somebody, instead of having to ask them "Well, where is it installed, in /opt/package, /usr/lib/package, or /usr/local/lib/package?" with qmail you can give actual shell script commands that a user can cut and paste.

I think that qmail would be a better MTA if it were open source, but one of the ways in which it would be harmed is that you could no longer assume the installation location. In order to be an advocate of open source, we must be clear on what is lost and what is gained.

The shouting in the interview is just strange.

Perhaps I assume too much? I thought everyone knew that OSI and the FSF have more or less been at loggerheads for many years. One of the last official actions ESR took was to begin negotiations with RMS on joint cross-linking of our license pages. I'm going to continue that project and try to find ways to improve relations between our two organizations. The shouting definitely wouldn't be funny if you didn't know that we haven't gotten along in the past. Sorry if you didn't enjoy it.
-russ

article on eWeek

Posted Feb 2, 2005 5:40 UTC (Wed) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] (2 responses)

There's an article on eWeek about the leadership change that LWN readers might find interesting. It speculates (justifiably? I don't know) that behind-the-scenes sniping at OSI has played a role in this.

article on eWeek

Posted Feb 2, 2005 6:02 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link]

Funny that Larry Rosen, of all people, is criticizing license proliferation...

Impetus for change (rumor & innuendo)

Posted Feb 2, 2005 19:51 UTC (Wed) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

Completely unconnected to the comments in Eweek, my suspicions are always raised when changes like this come out of the blue. Certainly, there are many, many CEOs who'd love to ``spend more time with my family'', or ``pursue other interests''. But when such desires are announced the day of their replacement, I can't see anything but some form of ouster. If they'd been thinking of it last week, they'd have said so. If the change was of their own free will, they'd have announced it well ahead of time, and pursued a clear course to a smooth transition.

Or am I just too much of a conspiracy theorist?

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 20:09 UTC (Wed) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link] (1 responses)

How does a treaty help translate open source licenses into other languages?

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 20:34 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

I think the idea is to find a way to make them legally binding in that other language without requiring every license to say so.

It strikes me as a bit tricky, though, because it's pretty much the same as saying `this license X reexpressed using other words is still valid for software licensed under X' combined with a scenario where the original license drafter or authors can't necessarily read the reexpressed license (because they don't understand the language in which it's been translated).

Translation into other languages necessarily implies reexpression, after all.

(And no, IANAL, although my cousin is --- the shame of it! --- a patent lawyer. I am trying to convince him that software patents are bad things as a form of penance.)

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 2, 2005 20:47 UTC (Wed) by twiens (subscriber, #12274) [Link] (2 responses)

As a GRASS user, I wasn't aware of this fellow I read his comments on the GRASS user list about what was all wrong about GRASS.... It certainly didn't leave me with the impression of someone who is patient or thoughtful. I don't know him, so I don't want to prejudge, but if I got this impression from someone in an interview, he wouldn't get the job, even if he was the only one who applied and I was desperate to hire someone.

Interview: OSI's new president

Posted Feb 7, 2005 16:28 UTC (Mon) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link] (1 responses)

I read his comments on the GRASS user list about what was all wrong about GRASS.... It certainly didn't leave me with the impression of someone who is patient or thoughtful.

Part of the problem with the whole GRASS thing is that it suffers from what I call the Software Stockholm Syndrome. Everyone who currently uses GRASS has suffered to gain the knowledge of how to use it. They are held captive by their hard-won expertise with it. Anybody who comes along suggesting changes is going to be perceived as a threat. Users feel it because they already know how to use the software. Developers feel it because a suggestion to change is an implicit criticism. So you end up with this insular community which resists entry from outsiders. You can guess that I don't think it's a good thing, but I know of no easy solution.

Go Russ

Posted Feb 11, 2005 5:56 UTC (Fri) by dmag (guest, #17775) [Link]

Amen.

The dominant player in any niche tends to be complex (Sendmail, Apache, Bind, Samba, Perl, etc.). In some instances (Apache, Samba), the complexity is shallow: Most simple problems can be solved in minutes. In other instances (Sendmail, GRASS), the complexity is deep: Some simple problems require days of research.

I think it's like UNIX. There are very few word processors (even text mode ones like Word Perfect) for UNIX because UNIX attracts the kind of people who don't use word processors. Beyond a certian complexity barrier, the situation just gets hopeless, I think.

Russ Nelson

Posted Feb 3, 2005 18:55 UTC (Thu) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link] (3 responses)

Chances are you've used a network driver written by Russ or perhaps a linmodem he has worked on. If you're a fan of DJB's software (but perhaps not a DJB fan :-) then you're probably aware of the sites (qmail.org and tinydns.org) he runs. See his web page for other stuff he's involved in.

Personally I have always found him to be extremely helpful on mailing lists, and I reckon he will do an excellent job as OSI boss.

Russ Nelson

Posted Feb 4, 2005 2:26 UTC (Fri) by jmason (guest, #13586) [Link] (1 responses)

I've known Russ for a few years through anti-spam work; he's always been clueful, courteous and helpful. I also think he'll make a good head of OSI.

Russ Nelson

Posted Feb 10, 2005 15:34 UTC (Thu) by RussNelson (guest, #27730) [Link]

jmason has outed me. Yes, I used to be a Boy Scout: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent. Got about halfway to being a Life scout. Managed to get Canoeing and Rowing even though Drowning is a better reflection of my swimming "style". Didn't get farther because our troop didn't have a good merit badge counselor system. You need support from the troop leaders to make it to Eagle.

Russ Nelson

Posted Feb 11, 2005 23:31 UTC (Fri) by adulau (guest, #1131) [Link]

DJB license is not free software license. Can you imagine to have free software without allowing redistribution of modified version ? not really free.