OSI procedures - a study in quotes
The issue of committee membership recently surfaced on the license-discuss mailing list. Rather than attempt to summarize the discussion, your editor decided to provide a few quotes and let the participants speak for themselves. For the curious, the entire thread is available from the archives.
Most of you will realize that I am uniquely qualified as the main author of the guidelines that OSI now seeks to interpret, and someone who has assisted many businesses and legal professionals in working within those guidlines since then. Two people with experience similar to mine but less in duration were admitted to the committee. There are a few legal professionals admitted. All others admitted are extremely worthy individuals, and have been working very hard at this, but I can't really say they are more experienced....
And thus, I really have to question the process.
-- Bruce Perens
It's very short. You should read it. I discovered something very interesting in it: it doesn't matter who writes the law, as long as the law treats everyone equally....
Rather than judging the process, you should judge the result. Since there are no results yet, you have nothing to say anything about.
-- Russ Nelson
Personally I think the OSI should drop any claims about representing the community, and instead describe itself as a group of self-selected experts who periodically issue opinions about open source licensing-- i.e., more or less the same as any NGO. I think that would be more honest and more helpful.
-- Russ Nelson
-- Bruce Perens
-- Russ Nelson
-- Russ Nelson
-- Keven Bedell
-- Russ Nelson
-- Bruce Perens
For what it is worth, the current committee membership is Brian Geurts,
John Cowan, McCoy Smith, Diane Peters, Cliff Schmidt, Laura Majerus, Karna
Nisewaner, Russ Nelson, Damien Eastwood, Eric Raymond, Mitchell Baker,
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh and Sanjiva Weerawarana. There are no indications that
any changes to the membership will be made.
Posted Aug 25, 2005 1:38 UTC (Thu)
by jstAusr (guest, #27224)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2005 2:28 UTC (Thu)
by danielthaler (guest, #24764)
[Link]
Well, I see I agree with at least one person there: the OSI truly doesn't matter. Case closed :)
Posted Aug 25, 2005 3:13 UTC (Thu)
by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
[Link] (11 responses)
Bruce posts a reasonable question. The obvious response is to post something diplomatic. Another response would be to be brutally honest about how ESR is still pissed from when PB called the cops on him. But instead of being diplomatic or honest, Russ's approach is to start posting wanker religious crap and making sarcastic comments about N+M>0.
He seems like a complete bastard actually... That counts for a lot to me even if it doesn't at bastiat.org.
Posted Aug 25, 2005 9:06 UTC (Thu)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
(And `faith-based reasoning' appears to be code for `circular reasoning'.)
Posted Aug 25, 2005 21:55 UTC (Thu)
by ronaldcole (guest, #1462)
[Link]
Posted Sep 1, 2005 19:02 UTC (Thu)
by zakaelri (guest, #17928)
[Link]
I agree with Perens on this matter... The fact that he created the OSI guidelines implies that he would know best what their intent was. While nothing should be judged soley on intent, the motivations and ideas behind the creation of something -- the mindset or spirit of the author, if you will -- does provide healthy insight. It is for this reason that I, when creating various charters (for school activities), have always included an addendum that expresses the rhyme behind the reason.
I hope that by showing people what was already attempted, they can use that as a foundation for what they have done. Of course, since Perens is still available, it would make sense for him to join in the conversation.
Of course, it seems that Bruce's opinion matters just about as much as mine ;)
Posted Aug 25, 2005 18:12 UTC (Thu)
by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 25, 2005 21:36 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't know if or how often ESR still threatens people with his gun, but if he threatens you, do report it.
Posted Aug 26, 2005 1:23 UTC (Fri)
by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
[Link] (1 responses)
Here's
Bruce's initial public message on the topic, though the context seems
to be OSI's controversial endorsement of Apple's code license.
Not to bring back a six-year-old controversy, but I notice that the
threat was (a) over email, and (b) did not explicitly mention shooting
Bruce. On the other hand, I still think it was over the top and I don't
think Bruce was unreasonable in his reaction.
OSI's relevance to the community has only dimmed since then.
Posted Sep 9, 2005 19:48 UTC (Fri)
by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)
[Link]
(Disclosure: I am on good terms with both of the people in question -- and hope to remain that way.)
First and foremost, the private e-mail about which Bruce (and you, rfunk) have, rather questionably, proclaimed that its author intended as a "threat" (impliedly, of violence) should not have been a matter for public mailing lists and Web sites, at all. Bruce, if you honestly believed it to be such, reporting it to your police department was appropriate — but posting it to debian-devel and elsewhere most certainly was not. One can reasonably posit a passive-aggressive attempt at character assassination in your reaction.
So: Bruce (and apologies to you and Eric both, for this being less than timely), simmer down, and, if you must fight, fight fair: You know that's no way to behave. As it is, the main lesson you've given people is "Don't trust Bruce with unguarded comments in private e-mail." Is that what you really want to be known for? Please understand that I say this with nothing but friendly intent.
Eric: Although any reasonable and minimally charitable reader would understand that the natural way an author and essayist will tend to "make you regret" things is with the pen rather than the sword (or boomstick or aikido punch), and that you do not have any history of beating people up just because you're frustrated and annoyed with them, a moment's contemplation will remind you that your "tribe" is unfortunately riddled with scurrilous gossips and trolls possessed of little or no moral scruple, not to mention those inclined to post first and switch on their brains later.
Nathan (ncm): I assume you've switched your brain back on, by now. ;-)
Rick Moen
Posted Aug 25, 2005 18:42 UTC (Thu)
by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698)
[Link]
Posted Aug 26, 2005 0:06 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (2 responses)
I didn't read anything sarcastic in the N+M. I think he's only trying to make the point of how uncomplicated the process of rejecting Bruce Perens was. There was probably some discussion we didn't see wherein someone suggested there was more to it.
Sarcasm is saying the opposite of what you believe and exaggerating it to show how it's ridiculous. But I'm sure Russ really believes it was an N+M decision just as he said.
Posted Aug 26, 2005 3:19 UTC (Fri)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link] (1 responses)
Five people are present, four of them are chosen.
The non-chosen person is told nothing they don't already know (four of the five were chosen). What they asked about (the basis for choosing one over another) is not explained in the slightest by the answer.
Posted Aug 26, 2005 6:22 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2005 3:35 UTC (Thu)
by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2005 6:02 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (2 responses)
Probably the best thing Bruce could do now is to start a competing group, welcoming all reasonable persons as members -- and also the OSI membership. The latter will be roundly outnumbered. His competing group may begin by defining as "Open Source" any product for which the source code is available on RAND terms, and concentrate on compatibility with Free Software instead.
The "Open Source" brand has proved a distraction at best, and a proliferator of non-Free licenses at worst. Let the brand join its promoters in well deserved obscurity.
Posted Aug 25, 2005 11:59 UTC (Thu)
by sean.hunter (guest, #7920)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 25, 2005 22:04 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2005 13:41 UTC (Thu)
by marduk (subscriber, #3831)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2005 16:23 UTC (Thu)
by louie (guest, #3285)
[Link]
Posted Aug 25, 2005 17:12 UTC (Thu)
by twiens (subscriber, #12274)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 1, 2005 8:49 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Open Source is a meritocracy. Who elected Linus? Who elected RMS? Please name me ANY well-known Open/Free Software person who was elected!
I just subscribe to the view that "those who want the job are those who are least qualified to do it", so the mere fact that someone is complaining "why have I been left off" is perfect justification for the fact they were left off.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 26, 2005 13:00 UTC (Fri)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link]
Posted Sep 5, 2005 0:32 UTC (Mon)
by landley (guest, #6789)
[Link]
I'm more impressed with Bruce Parens for not being a member of that committee and less impressed that he would want to be. A committee that includes a member that thinks the GPL is irrelevant has problems from the start.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Wow. I was optomistic when Russ took over but not so much anymore.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Religious? Frederic Bastiat was an *economist*. (A particularly readable one with non-loony ideas.)OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Russ needs to re-read Bastiat, me-thinks. Socialism treats everyone equally, but Bastiat was arguing against Socialism. Bastiat writes that the purpose of law is to prevent injustice from reigning (see the section "Law Is a Negative Concept") and not, as Russ incorrectly paraphrased, to treat everyone equally.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Of course, one of the problems with existence is that everything eventually comes down to faith... Whether it is faith in God, Self, Science, or whatever. Faith is how people operate.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
I'm missing who PB is, and what's this about calling the cops on ESR? OSI procedures - a study in quotes
What did I miss?
PB is Bruce Perens. There was a story that ESR threatened to shoot him. When ESR says he'll shoot you, he's not joking, even if he's smiling. So Bruce reported the threat to the police. ESR got all flustered and offended about it; probably he thought threatening to shoot BP expressing respect. Anyway that's how the story goes.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Thanks. From there I was able to Google for it.
Bruce vs ESR
Bruce vs ESR
rick@linuxmafia.com
OSI procedures - a study in quotes
I was optomistic when Russ took over but not so much anymore.
Russ Nelson was only briefly the president of OSI. He's still on
the board, but Michael Tiemann is the President.
>making sarcastic comments about N+M>0
OSI procedures - a study in quotes
If it was not sarcastic then it was very stupid. Here's an illustration:OSI procedures - a study in quotes
The one which was not asks why.
The answer given is that only four were chosen.
I think you're right -- I read more into the statement than is there. I assumed he was talking about an ordering in time -- i.e. Bruce applied after the N positions were already filled. But it doesn't say that explicitly.
OSI procedures - a study in quotes
It's business like this that makes me glad I can, most days, say "OSI who?"OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Over the years the OSI has gradually driven away its more reasonable membership, and now selects only the compatibly irrational.
OSI procedures - a study in quotes
There's nothing irrational per se about the comittee excluding Bruce Perens in spite of his own very high estimation of the value he would bring to the process. There's also nothing magical about the OSI. If people don't like the results they should just ignore them. For what little difference it makes, I will be ignoring the OSI whether or not I like the results, just like I ignore all other self-appointed organisations that puport to speak on my behalf.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Rejecting Bruce doesn't demonstrate irrationality, it's just consistent with the already observed pattern. The point is that as long as there's no public competing voice, their claims to legitimately control the definition of "Open Source" appear to stand. Once there are two contradictory voices it becomes much easier for a casual observer to dismiss the stranger one (or both) as irrelevant.Rationality
I fail to see the relevency. Free software existed long before these people decided to get together and argue like 6-year olds, and it is my opinion that free software will continue to strive for a long time despite them.What does this have to do with free software?
Hilarious, even if it is slightly depressing to watch high-profile grown men argue like six year olds. Thanks for the excellent presentation, Jon.Best. LWN. Article. EVER.
The entire situation is odd. I must admit I feel some disappiontment with Bruce Perens for pushing on this one. My suggestion to Bruce would be to let Russ, Eric and friends have their fun and post their guidelines and provide constructive criticism of the outcome. OSI puts its self forward as the voice of open source developers. I'm working on a few projects that will be released under the GPL or LGPL, but they don't speak for me. I have no voice or input. I think it is self evident that the non-democratic structure of the OSI invalidates their claim to be representative of the users and developers of OSS. I can see that from one point of view a committee looking at license proliferation is important and that getting the most experienced and qualified people on that committee is helpful. However, considering the organization that is doing it and the problems with that organization, the relative importance of the work is greatly reduced. Why you may ask? Because people will say, "Oh yes, that is the self important OSI spouting off again, who cares", and then they will do whatever that wanted to do in the first place. Don't sweat it Bruce, I and may others appreciate your willingness to work for the benefit of other FOSS developers and users, but this issue isn't all that important.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Stuff democracy! No I don't mean that badly, but Winston Churchill was right when he said that democracy was an awful method of government, just less awful than the other methods available.OSI procedures - a study in quotes
Wol
Please choose correct answer:How many Libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
1. None, the market will take care of it.
2 Two. One to say that the market will take care of it. The other to chase the electricians away with a gun.
I've heard of exactly two of those people (Eric and Russ), and I already OSI procedures - a study in quotes
know what both of them have to say because I've read their previous
writings on this issue. Plus on some things I already know I disagree
with them: Eric's anti-GPL stance, and Russ's belief that a closed process
to choose open licenses somehow avoids being a contradiction in terms.
The rest of the committee is people I've never even heard of. And I've
heard of plenty of lawyers. (Neither Lawrence Lessig nor Eben Moglen are
on the 'over-lawyered' list. As for legal perspectives I'd trust from
non-lawyers, why isn't Pamela Jones of Groklaw on there?)
Why on earth should I (or anyone) care about what comes out of this
committee? (Since when does open source work by committee, anyway?)