Slashdot Mirror
ESR steps down from OSI
Hope Thelps writes "According to an article on news.com.com, Eric Raymond is stepping down from his role as president of the OSI. His replacement will be our very own Russ Nelson. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Looks like Eric finally accepted the job offer from Microsoft.
:^)
Just kidding Eric, don't shoot me!
The submissions mentioned Russ's Slashdot Page, but a lot more info about him can be found at his home page and/or his company Crynwr.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
I look forward to his long-winded rambling pseudo-philosophical treatise on what it feels like to step down, and how that relates to the ethos of the Open Source movement.
Fanatics like ESR might do good to the cause in the early stages of revolution, but in the longer run, they will always prove to be an annoyance and will be dealt with. See, for instance, what Stalin did with the veterans of the Russian Revolution
:/
So in this analogy, ESR is represented by the veterans, and Russ Nelson is Stalin?
Fear not, knowledgeable people, and learn quite how full of shit ESR is.
ESR didn't step down, according to the article, he stepped aside.
-- SouNerd.com
Obligatory Good Morning Vietnam:
"Excuse me sir, seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT, because if it leaks to the VC, you could end up an MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP."
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
> I think I shall call my mother and share with her the wonderous news!
Don't shout. Just walk upstairs from the basement and tell her.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
You can get secret naked pictures of him touching printouts of open source code for all of your F/OSS fetish needs!
From the article:
Since when? Last time I checked, "open source" was a generic descriptor, and only use of the OSI CERTIFIED mark required approval from the Open Source Initiative.
From the article:
:P These business-orientated news sites have had fucking ages to get the facts right on all this stuff and they still can't do it.
Approval from the OSI is required for all open-source licenses, which are used on thousands of products, from the Linux operating system to the Firefox Web browser.
Erm, what? I don't need anyone to "approve" my software's license
But no!!! You're wrong! You're so wrong! FOSS is different. It's not meant to fall victim to the ravings of mad dictators like Fidel or the commies. ESR is simply stepping down in order to let someone else have a turn. After all, what fairness would there be in not letting everyone in the community have a shot at being the top dog for a while? ESR probably has a lot of more important things to get on with right now. I hear he has a fantastic glass eye collection he's been working on for the past decade or so. That kind of thing consumes a lot of time and would prevent one from being able to participate in FOSS evangelizationism as ESR has done. Just imagine how great his collection of glass eyes is going to be after only a year or two of being away from the FOSS evangelizationism. It would put to shame the glass eye collection that Terry Gilliam used in the cut scenes from Brazil. I, for one, welcome our hiatus taking squanderlords! (In case you people are curious, I am completely substance free)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
See, for instance, what Stalin did with the veterans of the Russian Revolution, or how Fidel Castro got rid of Che. Every revolution has ended up eating its children; i can't see why the Open Source Revolution should be different.
Yeah, now it's free to slaughter 30 million developers and subjugate every user to its iron grasp for fifty years. WTF?
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
Does this nelson guy look as retarded as ESR does?
I think a lot of it may be that the OSI is interested in fulfilling its original goal of creating an environment in which corporations feel comfortable using and contributing to Open Source software, and while ESR had his purpose in building the bridge between open source development and the corporate world, he's not capable of exploiting what's on the other side of that bridge. He knows enough about the business world, and he's charismatic enough, to get his foot in the door, but he doesn't know how to close the deal.
Hopefully Russ Nelson, who I believe has a longer history as a professional consultant to these corporations, will be able to close the deal and get more of these corporations to support Open Source in a monetary way, rather than just paying lip service to the idea.
If you entity don't set financial, technical or legal standards, it's probably not really needed.
Open Source Initiative does in fact set legal standards. It maintains a definition of what constitutes an open source license and approves licenses for use with its OSI CERTIFIED branding program.
Actually, this isn't always the case. For instance, the American Revolution is a good counter-example. Not only were the original revolutionaries not "eaten" but flourished in the government that followed the revolution.
You know, a psychologist would probably be able to interpret many interesting things from your post.
I'm not sure I like the idea that OSI is pitching itself as "the authority" of license evaluation. Although it is a lot easier to ask the question, "is license A approved by OSI" to mean "is the software licensed under A open source for me" but the question is flawed. One has to recognized that free software licenses are not created equal. The difference of them, and the choice involved, is what makes open source great.
I once had a signature.
For instance, the American Revolution is a good counter-example. Not only were the original revolutionaries not "eaten" but flourished in the government that followed the revolution.
Or at least, that's the way the eaters wrote the history books.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
in the echo chamber of technology news, all it takes-- as ESR did-- to get branded as a "fanatic" is to speak your mind.
The stepping aside of the "fanatics" doesn't mean anything more or less than the stepping aside of people with opinions, vision, or a desire to succeed. In the future the "open source movement" will be run like a business, like traditional charities and not-for-profits: i.e., inefficiently, carelessly and by bloated fat parasites who care about their own career, not the organization. In the future, groups like OSI will be operated not for the benefit of open source, but for the benefit of the "grown up" OSI group and its personal power. And we will hail it as the "fanatics" losing power.
Does the person taking ESR's place at OSI represent this process? Probably not. But almost certainly his successor will.
Open source isn't a revolution. This isn't Vladmir Lenin trying to convince people to take up arms and shoot people. This is software development. It is a creative endeavor. In a revolution. Revolutions are tricky because you need people who inspire at the beginning and people who are stable after the beginning. But this isn't a revolution. What is creativity without inspiration?
I'm not sure I agree with your examples, but I agree that it is a sign that Open Source is growing up. The article also mentioned how Open Source has transitioned from a few volunteer hackers to corporate backed programmers. GNU went through the same transformation, so again I view this as a good thing.
The only concern is how much influence corporate needs drive open source rather than individual desires. However, I think in the end the coporate influence can help solidify Open Source due to the pragmatic nature of most corporations. I would rather have one fairly standard tool (e.g., Open Office) that works pretty well, is quite common, etc. rather than a wide variety of tools that all do pretty much the same thing. Rather than building on the shoulders of those who came before, programmers tend to stand on their toes. ;^)
A good example of the problem I hope this will solve is the age old /. question: "Which Unix Distro do you recommend?" I'm guessing there are a lot of people who haven't tried Linux simply because it is too confusing taking that first step of getting a "Linux".
The reasons for this are several fold. Part of it is to discourage new incompatable licenses (you can't use APSL code in Apache that can't be used in Perl that can't be used in Linux that can't be used in AROS, to give some examples.)
Part of it is to make sure that a uniform set of licenses is produced. It's no good having open source, if one group thinks you should email all changes to them, or another thinks they should be able to use your stuff in a proprietary program without permission. The OSI can level the playing field somewhat.
As you might imagine, ESR was behind the bill, lobbying for it extensively behind the scenes. "Sometimes, it takes a government to push forward progress" he said in a recent paper, "The Cauliflower and the Mattress". "We expect governments to do a job, and that's to provide for the common welfare. Open Source is a critical part of our welfare. It is at the heart not merely of the software that runs this country, but of our future. Some might say we would be better off in a world without schools, and healthcare, with only guns to defend ourselves. I say no, that's wrong. Totally backward that is. We don't need guns when we have open source. We don't need to defend ourselves when we have control over the code we run."
Google for "The Cauliflower and the Mattress" and you should find a copy. Inspiring words.
Or better yet, to write his reflections on going through life with a complete lack of social skills?
IIRC, OSI was not granted a trademark on the phrase "open source", so anyone can use it for nearly anything.
No, not the OSI, but another organization founded by Bruce Perens, the SPI (Software in the Public Interest). Tradmark #75439502.
Then there was a little scuffle where the OSI wanted the trademark from the SPI, and I think it ended up being abandoned, and now the OSI has their 'certification mark' instead.
But in any case, Perens was the guy who co-founded the OSI and coined the term, and at the very least he has a certain moral right to it.
Fidel Castro did not get rid of Che. Che was given several high ranking posts in the government but he chose to leave in order to fight for other oppressed people.
Poor example.
A slashdot user becomes the head OSI. I think I'll burn down my computer now.
...so is "[tt]" a new, friendly, and convenient Troll Tag system?
The American Revolution wasn't a revolution, exactly. The people who orchestrated and lead the American Revolution weren't revolutionaries in the sense we normally use that word-- they were extant local political leaders, almost all of them elected local political leaders. The American Revolution wasn't the people rising up to overthrow a system, it was two empowered groups fighting over spheres of influence. The people generally happened to be on the same side as the empowered group that eventually won-- again, in large part they'd elected this empowered group-- but I don't think that's enough to call it a revolution.
The group who took control of Britain's holdings in America in the American Revolution-- the "founding fathers"-- were already established as the people who controlled America prior to 1750, 1750 being when Britain decided to stop taking a passive, absentee-landlord stance to its American colonies and instead assume a position of active control. The 26 years after that were basically a process of Britain's empowered group going going "hmm, you know, we own you, and we have the right to determine your affairs", and America's empowered group going "you don't have the right to determine our affairs, and you know what, come to think of it, you don't own us anymore either". We call this a revolution but "war for independence" would be a far more accurate way of putting it, since the American side of the war was 13 established and self-sufficient states and their goal was autonomy, not change.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The way i see it, it's a sign that Open Source is finally growing up. Fanatics like ESR might do good to the cause in the early stages of revolution, but in the longer run, they will always prove to be an annoyance and will be dealt with.
1. ESR is hardly a fanatic. He is much more of a pragmatist, falling somewhere between RMS and Torvalds, but much closer to Torvalds than Stallman.
2. OSI is an organization intended to promote Open Source software. As such it behooves OSI to have someone at the help that WON'T compromise the open source initiative's goals and philosophy, so arguing that his successor (who I know nothing about and wouldn't assume to be a great deal different than ESR) should be willing to change the organization's philosophy, political, or technical stance for some short term gain is very short sighted and ultimately destructive to the entire movement.
3. Having said all that, OSI has always been vulnerable to a "corporate takeover." Whether or not this is the case here (I kind of doubt it is), the position they've sought out as "mediator" between the corporate mindset and the free software movement certainly makes them vulnerable to that kind of thing.
4. I sleep much better knowing that RMS heads up the Free Software Foundation. These folks definite the stance of the movement. It isn't their job to compromise with those who oppose their philosophy, it is there job to articulate their philosophy and argue effectively for it. It is then up to the rest of us to choose our own stance, either 100% one or the other, or some middle-of-the-road mixture of the two. OSI falls somewhere in the middle, but to imply that moving toward the business end of the spectrum to the point where they become indistinguishable means the movement has "grown up" is to miss the whole point of the movement entirely.
Revolutions only eat their children when the revolution betrays its own ideals and becomes something very, very different. Contrast for example the Bolshevik/Communist revolution is Russia, which ran amok and never established communism, merely a dictatorship that called itself communist without practicing any of the economic or social advocated by Karl Marx, and the American revolution, which did remain true to its ideals for the most part and did in establish a democracy in its wake.
One became a monster with an entirely different agenda than the revolution and its revolutionaries while the other did not. One did "eat its children," while the other did not.
A more accurate statement would be to say that
"Each evoluton which betray itself and its ideals had ended uyp eating its children." In which case I can see every reason to expect the Free Software movement (and hopefull the Open Source movement with which it shares some adherents) should be different.
As a corallary, I would say that if history is any lesson, and if the Open Source (or Free Software) movmements do in fact "eat their children" we can pretty much understand that, at that point, they have betrayed themselves and everything they stand for, whith only the rhetoric remaining to gloss over an entirely different, probably very detrimental, agenda.
Luckilly I don't see any evidence of anything like that happening just yet.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If this kind of tantrum junkie is the best spokesperson the open source movement can find, they're really in trouble!
Hippies don't typically promote the right to carry firearms.
No they didn't and yes the phrase existed before the OSI was founded and it was not limited to software.
1992
1991
1990 Speaking about BSD's open source policy
It also has a large amount of use relating to the access of Intellegence information. The OSI simply used a common term relating to source code that is accessable, they did not coin the term and in no way have any way to justify any claims regarding ownership or oversight of it, it is simply a discriptive phrase.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
this still makes me laugh. And I mean laughing at him, not with him.
Is that a fault of Russians or a "dreamer" like Marx? I think a dictatoral state is the end result of any system that advocates "from each according his ability, to each according to his needs." You need a ruling class to start handing out rations as no one has a right to private property.
... the communal communes of Spain in the early 20th century. The country as a whole was a dual system, half capitalist, half communist. The local communists were very democratic and outcompeted their capitalist competitors (Note: communism != centrally planned).
Not any more than you need a ruling class for capitalism to work (someone owns the land, someone works for someone else).
There has been at least one working communist system that was inherently democratic
Both Washington and Moscow had strong interest in undermining this particular example of communism. Washington because it showed communism could outcompete capitalism under the right circumstances (small, democratic, self-organized communes and cooperatives trading with one another) and Moscow because it undermined their argument that communism required authoritarianism to work (this was particularly troublesome as the Spanish democratic variant was working far better than stalinism ever did).
The Spanish government coopted the communists into their system legally, then modified the laws to make them uncompetative and ultimately illegal. Kind of like what is happening to the internet vis-a-vis the expanded copyright laws today.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The open source movement has no problem with advocating for software that is not "open source". This movement's philosophy champions a development methodology aimed chiefly at businesses. When you focus on criteria where you can't always excel, like technological innovation, you sometimes have to stump for things that won't qualify for the imprimateur of your own organization.
Free software proponents, by contrast, champion a different philosophy: all computer users deserve the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify computer software. Thus, software freedom is primary, not technical innovation or faster and less buggy development. Hence, free software proponents never have the ironic situation of advocating the use of software they don't agree with. From the perspective of the older free software movement, the goals of the open source movement are nice as far as they go but they don't go far enough.
Digital Citizen
Who is this "Eric Raymond"? I thought Oscar Goldman was in charge at the OSI. Did he retire? The least they could have done is give Dr. Rudy Wells or Steve Austin the job as a sinecure.
Say what you want about me, but Michael Tiemann is a pretty smart cookie. You like g++? He wrote it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Seriously.. If you don't know who Russ is, you probably have never been to a Linux conference, or have never attempted qmail.
WTF! They're all dead now!
Or at least, that's the way the eaters wrote the history books.
You mean, according to the abundance of documentation availabe in private and public collections? Or the vast number of eye-witness accounts recorded in private letters and notes of the era?
This whole concept of "victor writes the history books" is flawed when there is an abundance of evidence that is freely available. We can search through and discover the true stories of all of American history, because every step is documented. If you would like to dispute the work that the historians have presented, please write your own papers and cite your sources.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Looking at a photo of ESR while reading "Sex Tips for Geeks" is a great way to make your genitive organs refuse to operate -- permanently.
Well except that the people supporting the revolution where only 1/5th the population at the start. Also note that local leadership had no real power. They most certainly weren't "established" in terms of holding the reins of power. It was all about "taxation without representation", if you'll recall highschool history class. In terms of "autonomy, not change", then why was it called The Great Experiment? Hint: it was a *radical* departure.
You got that right! NOT ONE of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence went on to serve in the newly formed Federal government. NOT ONE governed one of the 13 states after the revolution. NOT ONE of them was permitted to survive until the Constitutional Convention. All of them were either shot in the Boston Massacre or drowned in the Boston Tea Party.
(Yes, I realize that you were being funny, but a couple of the moderators didn't.)
My biggest problem with esr was that he couldn't seem to keep his OSI work separate from his other opinions about the proper place of women, how to treat homosexuals, etc. I respect his right to have those opinions, but I wish he would tuck them away during his very visible tenure as leader of OSI.
Russ has a fairly extreme view on libertarian economics. ("Extreme" because few people believe there should be no public liability laws -- I'd link but the archives are broken.) Fair enough; I sympathize even if I wouldn't go quite as far as he does.
My big question is: will he manage to keep his personal opinions separate from his OSI work? I do not want to hear any more OSI-related statements alluding to gun control. It's not just unprofessional, it's also a bad idea in that you may alienate people who like open source but dislike Rand.
It has become more than a merely descriptive phrase, though. It has become a well known term; a trademark if even I may say.
No, not a trademark; the proper description, I think, would be a "term of art."
'As defined in Random House Webster's Dictionary of the Law (James E. Clapp), a term of art is "a word or phrase having a special meaning in a particular field, different from or more precise than its customary meaning."'
BTW, Russ, it's fun to read your Angry Economist, and then use google groups to see what you've said in the past:
"I love it when libertarians reveal their innate illiteracy. Pray, tell me, Perry, where is the declaration of the inalienable right to property? Oh, you made it up? Because it was expedient? And it fit
in with your precious propertarianism? I thought so."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Why does everyone keep forgetting about the most important project? I've heard that Eric went to Thailand to finally get some empirical data for his HOWTO.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
This to my mind is bad news. I understand that ESR is controversial...Some people like him, and others definitely don't...but there's one area where he did the geek world a big favour...namely in the sense that from what I saw, he was the real world's answer to Louis Skolnick.
What I mean by that is that geeks traditionally are (to put it in politically correct terminology) "neurologically diverse." We seem to typically be either somewhere on the autistic spectrum (I myself was diagnosed in 1992 with a Nonverbal Learning Disorder, which is an autistic spectrum/PDD condition fairly similar to Asperger's) or to have ADHD. I've always thought that RMS's major problem as far as obtaining genuine (mainstream) relevance is concerned is the fact (at least to my mind) that he is deeply and visibly autistic, which seems to be an enormous hindrance to him when it comes to relating to other people.
ESR by comparison is/was relatively mainstream. I certainly won't say completely...but a lot moreso than RMS, and definitely moreso than is usual for the geek/hacker rank and file. In dealing with the corporate world (*especially* boomer corporates) it's absolutely vital that even if you aren't normal, you can convincingly pretend to be for extensive periods of time...which ESR evidently *is* capable of doing.
The point is that we *do* need someone like that, in order to act as a liason with the rest of the planet. Not only for those of us who genuinely can't do it, but also for those of us like RMS who I suspect probably *could* if they really tried, but who see doing so as tremendously immoral.
I understand some people don't like Raymond, and from what I've read of his writings I think I can at least suspect why that is. I think it's true that he probably *does* have an enormous ego, among other things.
But at the same time, in some ways personally I tend to see him as at least vaguely resembling the sort of person I myself would want to be if I had the courage to become self-actualised. I'm not someone customarily given to hero worship...and I'm not saying I engage in that with Raymond either, exactly...he's written things that I disagree with. But controversy about him aside, I think I have been able to see in him a lot which I admire and consider valuable...and I think as far as FOSS is concerned, he *has* made a difference. I hope that even after stepping down from this position, he'll still be willing and able to keep doing so.