Bruce Perens Aims For OSI Executive

mutube writes "Open Source advocate Bruce Perens began petitioning for support in election to the OSI Executive Board. Because it's a self-electing board, demonstrable community support is needed to attain a seat. Perens is standing on a platform of reducing over-representation of vendors in OSI leadership in favor of developers. In his petition notice, Perens suggests that recent Open Source involvement by Microsoft could lead to their being offered a place on the board. With his background fighting SCO and the Novell-Microsoft patent agreements, Perens would be a good counter-balance."

Comments

Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[inTheLoo]

Anyone at OSI who values freedom will resign if Microsoft gains a seat on the board. Microsoft is an enemy of free and open software. Organizations that recognize or endorse Microsoft are also enemies. Good luck, Bruce.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[0x000000]

I think that is a bit short sighted. Even if Microsoft is an "enemy" they have in the recent months started releasing more and more open source software. They have also started making amends in the browser space to follow the W3C standards. There is even an entire test suite they created with over 700 tests.

Do I dislike Microsoft. Yes? Can I take what good they do and use it to my advantage. If they meet the requirements and pre-req's for the OSI, then why should they not be allowed to be a member?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

OSI hasn't told me who else is running. And probably most of those folks would rather die than let MS on the board. But some wouldn't.

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[ushering05401]

Unfortunately such a withdrawal of OSI participants in response to MS involvement would be a PR victory for MS.

One of the most common perceptions I find among my MS clients is that open source and zealotry go hand in hand. If MS appears to be embracing the community and the community rejects them the concept of the open source community as a collection of immature idealists (read not corporate America ready) would be cemented in many minds.

When MS does begin their full force campaign to infiltrate the OSS community it should be met with carefully considered diplomacy, not blunt force resistance. Anything else will be a victory for MS.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[belmolis]

OSI does not have any members, only a board of directors. Microsoft should not be allowed on the board barring a dramatic and clearly sincere shift in its position and actions, because it cannot be relied upon to act to promote open software.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

I imagine that 99% of the folks at Microsoft have their heart in the right place. Certainly most of the ones I meet do. There are a few who do not at the top, and unfortunately the rest have to take orders sometimes. As we can see from the recent shenagians around the ISO vote, Microsoft has not given up its habit of playing dirty.

I have been on committees with them before, for example the patent policy board at W3C. I know how to deal with it professionally.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[0racle]

This sounds like a high school class president run. How does MS being on the board of an organization that as far as I can see in my usage of OSS does about as much as the protocol stack it shares its name with hurt or help anything.

Actually, why would anyone want to be on it's board?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[.Bruce Perens]

I imagine that 99% of the folks at Microsoft have their heart in the right place. Certainly most of the ones I meet do. There are a few who do not at the top, and unfortunately the rest have to take orders sometimes. As we can see from the recent bullshit around the ISO vote, Microsoft has not given up its habit of playing dirty. Despite all this, I'd love to work for them. Bill, who I have personally met, has done some wonderful humanitarian work. And I honestly believe that MS has gotten an unfair rap from the EU. And let's face it - Windows Vista, despite all the press claiming otherwise, is a damn nice OS. I'd like to work on it as a MS employee instead of a hacker.

I have been on committees with them before, for example the patent policy board at W3C. I know how to deal with it professionally.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

OSI is generally recognized as the organization that tells you if a license claiming to be Open Source actually is Open Source or if it's in some way giving you less rights than should come with Open Source. Those rights being defined in something I created 10 years ago called the Open Source Definition, which people seem to mostly still agree with. The main function of that board is to interpret those rules and certify licenses.

I think the "high school" nature of this is because the board is self-elected. Otherwise, there would be some formal structure that you could see around the election. The last time I asked Mike Tiemann, the closest definition I got of when the election is was "before the April board meeting", which I think is April 2.

I don't know that MS is a candidate, indeed I have not been told about any candidates. I don't think they'd win, so far. I trust most of the current board not to elect them. I have been on other commitees with Microsoft folks, for example the patent policy board at W3C. Unfortunately, they still like to play dirty. Someone like me can help to balance them.

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[asuffield]

I imagine that 99% of the folks at Microsoft have their heart in the right place. Certainly most of the ones I meet do.

My own observation of their employees has been that the problem is, by and large, not one of intent. Microsoft is a textbook example of how you can pave roads with good intentions. Much of the harm they do isn't deliberate, it's a mixture of bad planning, worse execution, and generally being oblivious to the idea that they aren't perfect (at least until it's too late to do anything about it).

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

Well, if they would stop doing the patent FUD, and stop stuffing ballot boxes at ISO, and in general stop the dirty fighting, we wouldn't need diplomacy. But I agree that they can make us look bad if we won't come to the table with them. We just have to make sure they don't leave with the table.

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[pembo13]

I think that's pretty optimistic. I wouldn't assume that 99% of people at RedHat or Canonical had their "heart's in the right place". What makes you assume that of Microsoft?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

Majerus, Laura Board Observer, Director of Legal Affairs Emeritus March 2005 Google Too bad that your outrage doesn't extend to those companies they help other countries oppress their people.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Blakey Rat]

Christ, you sound like you're trying to convince Christians to expel the moors from Spain. Microsoft's just a company like any other, making software just like any other. If Microsoft's "an enemy of free and open software" then what is Adobe? Intuit? Apple? Etc? Are any companies *not* enemies of free and open software?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

I think that's pretty optimistic. I wouldn't assume that 99% of people at RedHat or Canonical had their "heart's in the right place". What makes you assume that of Microsoft?

Well, rather than being actively malevolent, a lot of people just don't give a damn. Some know that they can do the right thing but choose not to get involved. Maybe they'll tell you it's "over their pay-grade".

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Naughty Bob]

According to the internets, Dextrocardia is believed to occur in approximately 1 in 100 people.

Your 99% figure for MSFT therefore has a ring of truth, if not truthiness.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[mrchaotica]

a lot of people just don't give a damn

Then that doesn't count as "hearts in the right place," now does it?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[belmolis]

Microsoft certainly has been more active in attacking the free software movement and in particular Linux. Sure, other companies want you to buy their software rather than use something else, but most of them haven't generated the amount of FUD that Microsoft has or engaged in the bullying that Microsoft has. Do you see the Opera folks behaving like Microsoft? I don't think so. Do you see Corel trying to lock people into WordPerfect's file format? No, they were one of the original members of the OASIS committee that created ODF.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

But I agree that they can make us look bad if we won't come to the table with them. We just have to make sure they don't leave with the table.

Nor should the table budge an inch to suit their needs. Microsoft is not a leader in the open-source world, and until they get their act together, and have had their act together for some time (say, a decade), I really don't see why anyone should trust them. Give MS "observer status" at OSI if you want---perhaps they'll learn something---but to give them decision-making power on the board is irresponsible.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

Christ, you sound like you're trying to convince Christians to expel the moors from Spain. Microsoft's just a company like any other, making software just like any other. If Microsoft's "an enemy of free and open software" then what is Adobe? Intuit? Apple? Etc? Are any companies *not* enemies of free and open software?

Hi Blakey,

There is a scale of corporate collaborators with the Open Source community. It runs the range of Benefactor, Symbiote, User, Parasite. All companies can be fit somewhere on this scale, sometimes we argue about what label one should get. NASA, back when it sponsored the development of most of the Linux network card drivers, was a benefactor. They didn't really plan to use them for their own operations. Most companies that attempt to be a sincere partner with the community are symbiotes, and they return value to the community in exchange for the value they get for their business, for example by developing more Open Source. Users are folks who just passively use the software without doing anything for the community - but we like to have Users because they give us the artistic gratification of seeing our software used and they sometimes become Symbiotes. Parasites are folks like SCO, that take value from the community in a harmful way.

MS, unfortunately, while they are spewing patent FUD at us, while they are attempting to pervert the standards vote at ISO by creating dozens of new members for a single meeting, Microsoft doesn't belong on the partner scale at all. Apple tries to participate in Open Source, sometimes not successfully as when they took Open Darwin private, sometimes successfully as when they support the CUPS printer management system. Adobe, I don't know enough about their recent activities, but they made some open standards that we use very extensively, like Postscript, Type 1 and PDF. They also have been putting DRM in PDF, etc., which is generally negative.

So, Microsoft is not just like any other company just like you are not like any other person. We have to make judgements based on the way they act.

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[djradon]

>Adobe?
Certainly not a friend, although they do benefit from open-source software. They seem like the penultimate holdover from pre-internet software companies: first-mover advantage -> de facto file and ui standard -> price bloat -> ever-tighter copy restrictions -> ?undermining open source alternatives?

Intuit?
Not a friend, although they do offer software to "open source systems"http://www.intuit.com/about_intuit/press_room/press_release/2007/06-13.jhtml. I agree with you though, these commercial enterprises are _supposed_ to do everything in their legal power to profit. Just seems to me, they'll never be able to beat FOSS alternatives in the long run.

Apple?
Love-hate relationship. Opensource saved Apple's bacon. They do things like Darwin, Bonjour, and Webkit. Apple is more like the smooth-talking ex-boyfriend of opensource.

Not enemies? JBoss. MySQL. Countless others.

(Assuming you're not a troll)

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[perlchild]

So in other words, as long as open source(which includes, and requires, a cleaner "process" than Microsoft) wants to fight Microsoft on OSS's own turf(clean process) they lose(not corporate), on Microsoft's own turf(shady legitimacy), they lose, on neutral ground(which I haven't seen yet, as everyone seems to have some form of bias(or can seem to, if you're arguing against them), they also lose.

The opposition from OSS to Microsoft usually stems from people who wanted to be Microsoft friends, and who saw how Microsoft treats its friends/partners. (Long list, from Stacker to kerberos implementations gone wrong, etc...) If you are in OSS, you can see that Microsoft has a history of cheating, you can (with some justification) expect them to try to cheat you, but the business guys expect you to ignore this, or else, YOU are against the corporate ethos? Diplomacy is all well and fine, but it's usually best employed between parties whose good faith is equal.

Let's just agree corporate America isn't ready for open source, I for one am ready for the next debate. Microsoft will not clean up its act without a BIG stick on the nose. So far, it's only got a rolled up newspaper, and only when it got caught red-handed. They have not shown "good faith", they have done damage control. They've never formally renounced "embrace/extend/extinguish" as a modus operandi. This is the people we have to be diplomatic with... Can we just agree we don't want to play, and go home? There's been a very long, bloody history of bad faith(mostly on their part, but yes there have been zealots on the other camp too, however, there's only been casualties on one side), too big to ignore unless something changes(they could formally drop OOXML, and embrace ODF(not in a year, not after the next shareholders meeting, but now!) something LOUD, something that shows they believe in openness(not necessarily open source) that they are willing to face the anger of their shareholders over it. (I've kept fantasizing they'd opensource office instead, but that won't happen that's just a fantasy).

If Microsoft continues with software as a service, they will either become an unstoppable juggernaut, or make themselves completely irrelevant. They don't need the opensource crowd, so what diplomacy we do is just allowing them to dodge bigger and bigger fines from regulatory body, not enticing, encouraging, or helping them believe in openness. And right now, they are making money in giving just the apparence of openness, and corporate America does not care, can not care, will not care, but will bemoan its fate when a stronger Microsoft has it again by the balls and ask us, "where were you, we knew you hated them, why didn't you warn us, you're it guys, etc...". And we'll just tell them, we've been telling you, you just told us we were fanatics... Well sometimes, even fanatics have real opponents, people who believe just as fanatically(if only at the top) in exactly the opposite idea.

I for one think openness means Microsoft cannot bully the market, since I've not seen them win market share on product merit in quite some time, I think they need to bully the market in order to enhance their shareholder value. More openness would be against increasing their market capitalisatiion, and therefore a bad thing, for them. It's mutually exclusive, we can build a market where everyone can play, or Microsoft can build a market where they give permission to play, it's not exactly a place for compromise...

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Soko]

The only one of the four vendors you list produces an operating system. That one exception relies on an open core to their OS, too. IOW, they have little reason at present to try and stop Open Source projects in their tracks. At present, anyway.

Though I wouldn't exactly call any one on your list an Open Source promoter, Microsoft is the only software vendor that would dearly love to kill any software, especially Open Source, that doesn't run exclusively on Windows. They've killed others who've simply threatened Windows in the past, and don't seem to have learned anything from being convicted of abusing their monopoly power to do so. Windows is the core and foundation of the MS domination - open file formats and protocols being the lynch pin. If either falls, so does MS.

I don't think that can be said of any other vendor, even the ones on your list. The problem Microsoft faces with an Open OS is that they can't kill the company behind it, they have to find a way to kill a community - namely slipping a patent encumbered "standard" past a standards body, like OSI.

Go get 'em, Bruce.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[jav1231]

I have been convinced, and have said here many times, that Microsoft is inherently evil. Like kicking puppies. You feel this instinctively, inside. That said, I'm sure there are good people working there. Just as there are decent people sweating out an existence in some sweatshop in China longing for freedom. It is my belief that Microsoft doesn't want to be in the technology business it wants to be the technology business. And it wants this at the expense and in spite of every other technology business. Therefore I wouldn't trust them for anything under any condition. And yes I am quite smug and comfortable in my position.

Frankly, I simply cannot conjure up enough evil that would fittingly befall the company!
So yes, I support your effort and wish you luck! While Microsoft represents one extreme of my level of confidence, you, Bruce, represent the other!

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[pintpusher]

I have mod points, but have to point this out so that people aren't confused.

Parent is not Bruce Perens. its .Bruce Perens.

note the period at the beginning of the name...

Not the real guy!!

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[sootman]

Somebody mod this guy down. Not because what he's saying is bad, I just want to browse this page at +5 and see only comments by Bruce. I think that would be cool. Right now there's only this comment and one other cluttering up my view. :-)

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your concerns and questions. Sign the petition - and lets find out!

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

The parent post is a fake. The real Bruce Perens has user-id 3872, not one of those six-digit ones.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Antique Geekmeister]

We'll see. OSI is not the Free Software Foundation: they're willing to go along with licenses and policies that allow considerably less user freedom, and provide far more vendor control, than the GPL.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[wannabgeek]

I modded it Troll by mistake. So I'm posting to nullify. Feel free to mod this post off-topic

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[BigDoggie]

Microsoft doesn't even accept the GPLv3 on CodePlex, their supposed "open source" repository (see: http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/03/microsoft-lost.html)

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[zotz]

"Users are folks who just passively use the software without doing anything for the community - but we like to have Users because they give us the artistic gratification of seeing our software used and they sometimes become Symbiotes."

Bruce,

I think you are missing one key thing users give us... Just by using... Network effects.

I would have a much easier time asking people to switch from office to openoffice.org if everyone else was already using openoffice.org and not office. (I hate using that .org, has the other openoffice not gone away yet?)

We would be getting much better hardware support if we had more plain users. This is a positive input plain old users give us. Even if they don't contribute money or code.

Your thoughts?

all the best,

drew
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Packet In - net band... copyleft music?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

Well said. I should be pointing that out.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[mdemonic]

Parent is not Bruce Perens. its .Bruce Perens.

note the period at the beginning of the name...

Maybe he's hidden

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAD, but from a quick glance at some medical textbooks, it would not appear that even 1% of people have thir hearts in the wrong place

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[zotz]

To me, this is one of the beauties of Free Software.

People can take all they want in keeping with the copyleft licenses (I haven't thought this through with the others) and not "give back" and still be positive forces and not leaches. I wonder if this overcomes the free rider problem?

Also, I think those who give code back, actually benefit more than just plain users. So it pays to move on to the contribution phase where you can.

all the best,

drew

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[mudshark]

Oh, the irony...that having one's heart in the right place means that one's heart is not on the right.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

There isn't really a free-rider problem like on a bus - because there's no cost to making a copy there are an infinite number of "seats". There is a finite number of customers for paid copies, so proprietary software can be displaced by Free Software. That's just progress.

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[zotz]

I too think that there is no free rider problem when it comes to Free Software, but I see people talking tragedy of the commons problems for this domain none the less.

all the best,

drew
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend at work forwarded me this today - I went to sign it, and I got a warning that I need to enable cookies.

I browse with cookies off - why do you need to save information to my computer just so that I can fill in a form?

Maybe next time.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

Some think that the tragedy of the commons in Open Source occurs if work on a product stops before the product reaches critical mass. But this may just be natural selection between multiple competing products.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Blakey Rat]

I considering myself a pretty neutral person, and I have to say the FUD flows both ways. Talk to any Slashdotter about Vista, for instance, and try to correlate the information they relate with reality. I don't react well to propaganda, and I see a lot more anti-Microsoft propaganda than pro-Microsoft, so maybe it's something of a knee-jerk reaction. (It also doesn't hurt that Microsoft indirectly pays my bills.)

I guess what I'm really opposed to is this destructive "us vs. them" philosophy that you seem to convey, along with a lot of other posts on this site. Despite how "evil" Microsoft is, you have to admit that they've done a damn sight better job at making an OS that actually works for the average Joe and has features that American corporations drool over. As a person who doesn't give a flying crap about "Freedom" (don't get me started on that particular piece of 1984 doublethink!), I'd much rather use OS X or Windows Vista (or XP) over Ubuntu, because from my experience OS X and Vista actually work while Ubuntu doesn't.

(Of course part of the problem there is more propaganda from the Linux community, telling me that Ubuntu is just as good as XP, I should give it a try. So I give it a try, and nothing f-ing works! My wireless doesn't work, my computer doesn't go into sleep mode, applications crash left and right, installing an application in the prescribed manner doesn't put an icon on the desktop or "we ripped off the Start menu"-widget. I was disappointed with that, but even more disappointed that, given the opportunity to start from a clean slate, the UI was an exact Xerox of Windows-- is nobody in the Linux world even slightly concerned about usability? Ugh.)

Anyway, sorry for the rant. I guess the big picture is that I don't react well to propaganda and blatant lies, and I see more of those from the Linux community than any Microsoft community I talk to, including actual Microsoft employees.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[rtb61]

It really depends upon who M$ sends to represent them. Whilst some individuals from M$ might be counted upon to make a valuable contribution, there are some others who really have no business being there at all, nor would they be expected to be anything other than destructive.

A seat on the board is all able growing and promoting open source software and not about aligning it with the profit based motives of any particular company. Any sitting board member must represent what they believe to be in the best interest of Open Source software and should completely ignore the interests of their current employer, if they can not they should not be there.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to pry the parenthesis out of your keyboard.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[goose-incarnated]

It really depends upon who M$ sends to represent them

No, it doesn't. They could always change their representative when they feel like it. For example, send in a really polite OS geek who works for Microsoft, then 2 months later replace him with a Ballmer-wannabe.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[ozmanjusri]

The last time I asked Mike Tiemann, the closest definition I got of when the election is was "before the April board meeting", which I think is April 2.

April 1 then.

Is there something you'd like to confess now, Bruce?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[ozmanjusri]

So I give it a try, and nothing f-ing works!

Self-fulfilling prophecy, I suspect.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a person who doesn't give a flying crap about "Freedom" (don't get me started on that particular piece of 1984 doublethink!), I'd much rather use OS X or Windows Vista (or XP) over Ubuntu, because from my experience OS X and Vista actually work while Ubuntu doesn't.

Word. When I click an icon, I'd like my document to open or my program to start, or at least some feedback explaining why it didn't. All too often, Linux just sits there and gives you a dumb look when you tell it to do something.

Whatever else might be wrong with Microsoft or Apple, they at least get that part right.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[gr8scot]

Well, rather than being actively malevolent, a lot of people just don't give a damn. I understand this to mean that the minds are too inactive to judge the hearts, so he assumes them innocent until proven guilty. Bruce?

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Bruce Perens]

Is there something you'd like to confess now, Bruce?

Yes. I now realize that the title of this article is a double-entendre. :-)

And sure, I will be the april fool for doing this, because it's going to take my time, some of the interpersonal relationships aren't going to be fun, and nobody's paying. I must really care or something :-)

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[SgtChaireBourne]

It really depends upon who M$ sends to represent them.

No. It does not. There is no positive outcome from M$ involvement involving governing a project which goes against the M$ fundamental business model(s).

Can you say "conflict of interest" ?

There. I knew you could.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[jimicus]

Microsoft will not clean up its act without a BIG stick on the nose. So far, it's only got a rolled up newspaper,

If you must use doggy analogies, then I'm afraid that Microsoft have spent so long tasting blood that they'll never make a good pet now. They're known to be dangerous around children and other pets, and have been known to go after adults as well.

I'm sorry, but there's only one thing to do - put them to sleep. I know it sounds cruel, but it's the best option of a pretty bad bunch - the alternatives involve too many more people getting hurt.

They'll go to doggy heaven, where they can chase all the cats they want and we'll get you a new doggy.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[rtb61]

To pick off both comments in the one hit. Being an employee of M$ does not make a person evil, they just happen to be an employee of M$ and they are defined by their behaviour while they are an employee of M$. An individual is nominated to the board, not a representative of M$, hence if that individual leaves, another individual will replace where ever they come from, whether it be M$ or not.

So it is all the the the qualifications and the qualities of the individual and how well they will fulfil that role, not race colour, creed, religion 'hehe' should they be currently employed by M$ and be some what considered as closed source fundamentalist. Personally I believe Bruce Perens to be the best candidate for the current vacancies and did the petition thing, how ever at some point in the future there will be other vacancies and just because a person is or has been employed by M$ should not exclude them, not that I can think of any current M$ employees that would be considered suitable for a 'chair' on the OSI board.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[electrictroy]

If you've read Bill Gates CUG letter circa 1979 which argued *against* open source software, it is obvious why we do not want him on the board.

Within 5 years he'll have turned Open-source into Closed-source.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[SgtChaireBourne]

...Being an employee of M$ does not make a person evil, they just happen to be an employee of M$ and they are defined by their behaviour ...

So it is all the the the qualifications and the qualities of the individual and how well they will fulfil that role...

The problem of conflict of interest, on its own, ought to be enough.

Re-read my post, the word 'evil' is not mentioned, just conflict of interest. Conflict of interest disqualifies any M$ candidates from the position. But as you imply, 'evil' is as evil does.

Since you make the association between M$ and the word evil, how else would you describe someone that works for an interest that causes harm to its customers and net-users in general, has an adversarial relation with its customers, has a multi-decade court-documented history of illegal and unethical practices? The 'I just work here' excuse doesn't cut it.

Don't confuse M$ with closed source. M$ is an opponent of both closed source and open source competition. M$ has run its Jihad and for a decade, holding the 'net back. It's harmed innumerable businesses both inside and outside the IT sector. M$ stops now unless gullible people fall for the same lines again and again.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Alex Belits]

Word. When I click an icon, I'd like my document to open or my program to start, or at least some feedback explaining why it didn't. All too often, Linux just sits there and gives you a dumb look when you tell it to do something. Hint: in default configuration you are supposed to double-click on icons.

You are also not supposed to "install Linux" on a failing hard drive, on an old box that you stopped using after it literally fell apart, with 133MHz Pentium MMX and 32M of RAM, then complain about humongous packages such as OpenOffice and Eclipse "giving you a dumb look when you tell it to do something".

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[David Gerard]

We're seeing this on the Wine mailing list of late. winehq.org set up a forum, gatewayed with the old list, and the number of posts has gone through the roof. Because finally it's getting in all the people who aren't geeks, but are sick of Windows being flaky crap, so they're trying Linux (usually Ubuntu) and have just this one old Windows app they want to run. It's annoying a lot of the geeks, but is also generating lots of useful bug reports. And showing just how important World of Warcraft compatibility actually is for Linux adoption ...

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Blakey Rat]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that, if there isn't enough RAM to run OpenOffice or Eclipse, that the OS put up a dialog box telling you so. Unless you think 32M is not enough memory to put up a dialog box... but I seem to remember Macintosh doing that just fine in 128k of RAM.

For what it's worth, my experience was a lot like Anonymous Coward's. I came across tons of bugs in software packages, mysterious error messages, applications quitting with *no* error message, etc.

I know that "well, it's better now" but it's been "better now" since the first time I tried Linux with Red Hat 6, and I'm sick of being jerked around. When a non-biased person, a person who knows computer GUIs pretty well, a person who will ensure 100% feature parity with at least Windows 2000 or Mac OS 9, tells me that Linux is as good as Windows, maybe I'll believe him. Right now Linux is this weird mix of technologically advanced applications and concepts, while missing some of the most basic usability concepts that Microsoft and Apple had right in the mid-90s.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to any Slashdotter about Vista, for instance, and try to correlate the information they relate with reality. Highlighted your mistake above, so you don't miss it.

Generalizations suck, ok? Please avoid them.

As for the rest of your post. I read it, and thought about what you wrote.

I agree with your sentiment regarding propaganda.

I disagree completely with everything else you wrote.

Feel free to care, or not.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Alex Belits]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that, if there isn't enough RAM to run OpenOffice or Eclipse, that the OS put up a dialog box telling you so. Unless you think 32M is not enough memory to put up a dialog box... but I seem to remember Macintosh doing that just fine in 128k of RAM. Oh, there is enough RAM to run it. It just has to constantly use swap, so it may take half an hour to start. All operating systems behave in this manner, it's just no one would "play with Vista" on an obviously inadequate and likely broken computer, however every time a Microsoft fan installs Linux, he chooses a computer he wouldn't expect being usable for any other purpose.

For what it's worth, my experience was a lot like Anonymous Coward's. I came across tons of bugs in software packages, mysterious error messages, applications quitting with *no* error message, etc. Examples, please. I hear this constantly from Microsoft fans, and it always happens that they never installed the system in the first place but heard it from someone else.

I know that "well, it's better now" but it's been "better now" since the first time I tried Linux with Red Hat 6, Do you mean, the LAST time? Red Hat 6.0 was released in 1999. Windows OSes that were released around the same time, and especially drivers provided with them, were notoriously hard to install by a "person who knows computer GUIs pretty well", unless they were preinstalled. Guess what, Red Hat 6.0 in a professionally preinstalled configuration worked just fine, too.

and I'm sick of being jerked around. When a non-biased person, a person who knows computer GUIs pretty well, a person who will ensure 100% feature parity with at least Windows 2000 or Mac OS 9, tells me that Linux is as good as Windows, maybe I'll believe him. Right now Linux is this weird mix of technologically advanced applications and concepts, while missing some of the most basic usability concepts that Microsoft and Apple had right in the mid-90s. Are you sure that those "usability concepts" aren't actually your expectations that everything in the world has to have an exact copy of Windows interface (pre-OSX Mac OS was where it was copied from, this is why it looks familiar to you)? Try to use OSX that some people claim to be the latest and greatest in UI design -- you will complain in exactly the same manner about it, because it also has some significant differences from Windows.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[call-me-kenneth]

I imagine that 99% of the folks at Microsoft have their heart in the right place.

With the greatest respect, I imagine that's some good shit you're smoking. What sort of parallel universe is it where Microsoft is interested in non-closed, non-proprietary software in any context other than "competitor to be crushed at all costs"? If these 99% of people have been happy to work with the Great Satan(s) at the top for the last 20 years, well, more fool them if they expect anything other than contempt from most of the Free /libre / OSS communities.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[ozmanjusri]

I must really care or something :-)

I'm glad you do.

But it's probably worth remembering you're not Robinson Crusoe on that. There are a lot of silent (for some values of silent) supporters you can tap if you need to. In fact, if you need help from over in Australia, give me a yell.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[pjt33]

It's like driving on the right side of the road. As a Brit, I consider that the right side of the road on which to drive is the left side.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Blakey Rat]

Do you mean, the LAST time? Red Hat 6.0 was released in 1999.

No, the last time was Ubuntu 6.something, about 2 years ago. I was trying to set up a MythTV box, but gave up after it turned out Linux had no drivers for my Hauppauge WinPVR 250 video capture card. (There was one driver that claimed to support it, but didn't.)

Guess what, Red Hat 6.0 in a professionally preinstalled configuration worked just fine, too.

Maybe it did.

But the Red Hat website specifically claimed that it supported Creative Soundblaster 128 soundcards, and yet the entire time I had it running I never heard any sound from it.

Admittedly, it wasn't a "professionally preinstalled configuration", but if the product claims to support X and doesn't actually support X, I don't know about you, but I go back to the alternate product that actually does what it claims.

Are you sure that those "usability concepts" aren't actually your expectations that everything in the world has to have an exact copy of Windows interface (pre-OSX Mac OS was where it was copied from, this is why it looks familiar to you)?

No. I've used Macs my entire life. I was raised on Macintosh 6.0-9.2, OS X 10.2-current, Windows 95-current (never had experience with previous versions of Windows.) I've used NeXT, I've used BeOS, I've used OS/2. I've used GeOS, even, on my Commodore 64.

And yes, I do complain about OS X all the time; Apple's ditching of useful features and complete disdain for the spatial GUI design they themselves invented were enough to drive me to Windows. Windows also isn't spatial, but at least it doesn't pretend to be like OS X does. And at least every version of Windows has all the features that the previous version did; Apple sure can't say that. Also the dock sucks.

I complain about Windows, I complain about Macintosh (OS X or Classic), I've complained about every OS listed above. (Except perhaps BeOS, it was damned sharp.) I'm not looking for a Windows clone. But the simple fact is that, right now, Microsoft is arguably doing more to advance the state-of-the-art for GUI usability than any other company out there. Certainly more than every Linux distribution combined.

Apple's Time Machine is Windows Shadow Copy with some sparkle added. Apple's "Dashboard" widgets is Windows 98's "Active Desktop." Vista can reboot drivers without rebooting the OS, the exact same way BeOS did. The Office 2007 interface is more discoverable than anything I've seen.

The only original concept I've ever seen from Linux is the idea of virtual desktops. I think they have dubious usability benefits, but it's an original concept. Everything else is just ripped from Windows, except poorly implemented.

I'm sorry I don't meet your expectations of a naive Windows-only user.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[BooRolla]

The parent post is a fake. The real Bruce Perens has user-id 3872, not one of those six-digit ones.

Sure... or is that just what user-id 3872 *wants* us to believe??


j/k Bruce

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, there is enough RAM to run it. It just has to constantly use swap, so it may take half an hour to start. All operating systems behave in this manner, it's just no one would "play with Vista" on an obviously inadequate and likely broken computer, however every time a Microsoft fan installs Linux, he chooses a computer he wouldn't expect being usable for any other purpose.

I hate to burst your bubble here, but I've been in IT since 1979, and been a Unix admin for 17 years. Some of the servers I support are even - surprise! - linux servers. Far from being castaway pieces of junk, as often as not the machines I've installed linux on were machines bought and speced specifically for running linux on.

I'd note that frequently enough, when I've investigated situations like the one I mentioned, it's not because the program is taking it's time starting, it's because it isn't even installed! Now, come on - can you really see Microsoft or Apple littering your desktop with icons that have nothing associated with them? That's just plain sloppy! And you usually won't even get a message from the UI telling you the program isn't there.

Not to mention, you also have situations where vendors provide admin tools which will only run on one or two specific distros. And between several vendors, it's never the same distros! So what would you like me to do? Run a half-dozen different VM's on my desktop to accommodate all those different distros? Or does it just make more sense to run the Windows versions, which will usually all install and run on any version of Windows released in the last decade?

Sorry, but the user experience for end user linux still just isn't very good. Yes, I can go through aggravation of tracking down and fixing all those little nits, and kludging things into working, but truthfully, it's just not worth my time when there are products available that perform the way I need them to right out of the box.

There's an old saying that linux is free only if your time is worthless. There's a lot of truth in that old saying.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Just Some Guy]

Newbie.

(Gah, must learn to resist /. ID wars.)

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[jscob]

I don't think the PARENT is the real Bruce Perens, unless Bruce felt like he needed to re-register as '.Bruce Perens' to use as an evil twin.

As far as I can tell, the REAL Bruce Perens has a 4 digit id.

So modding '.Bruce Perens'(150539) down would be the right thing.

Re:Fighting Microsoft at OSI.

[Lennie]

I do think Apple are starting to learn about give & take. See: http://webkit.org/

BusyBox Funding?

[eldavojohn]

For campaign funding, perhaps you could take a cut of that undisclosed settlement for BusyBox (which I believe you started) that was paid out to two other developers?

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[Bruce Perens]

Unfortunately, one of those developers tells me that every line of code I wrote in creating Busybox is gone from the code base, and that I have no rights :-( . I am not sure I believe that, but there is no good to be had in further engaging with that developer, I have bigger battles to fight.

Bruce

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[belmolis]

Unless your contribution consisted only of small, isolated bits, which as I understand it was not the case, even if there is nothing left that is recognizably your original code, BusyBox as a whole is still a derivative work and you therefore retain rights in it, no?

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[Bruce Perens]

Unless your contribution consisted only of small, isolated bits, which as I understand it was not the case, even if there is nothing left that is recognizably your original code, BusyBox as a whole is still a derivative work and you therefore retain rights in it, no?

I don't want any money. And regarding settlements, SFLC generally gets money to support its own operations, and I suppose that the plaintiffs want some money to compensate their efforts. They are after all consultants who get paid for their time.

But I am a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing.

Bruce

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[asuffield]

Unless your contribution consisted only of small, isolated bits, which as I understand it was not the case, even if there is nothing left that is recognizably your original code, BusyBox as a whole is still a derivative work and you therefore retain rights in it, no?

The legal theory of homoeopathic copyright (ie, derivative works that don't contain any of the original content) is one that has been often proclaimed by lawyers but never firmly decided in court. So realistically, no (unless you have the time and money to push through a case that would set a precedent in this area).

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[.Bruce Perens]

Well, lawyers deal in theory, most of us here on slashdot are in the trenches dealing with the reality of it on a day to day basis. And if you truly believe that money should be the barrier standing between our beliefs and what truly should be a part of our lifestyles, well then I feel sorry for you. One of the benefits of living in America is the ability to live our lives however we choose, without government interference and hopefully without social oppression.

Wait a minute. Oh, you said homoeopathic copyright, not homerotic. I don't know anything about that. My bad.

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[belmolis]

Actually, that depends on who your opponents are. If they are a large, well-funded corporation, the financial barrier may be great. If it is a matter of getting other developers of software you started to recognize your rights, it may not be.

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[QuantumG]

"homoeopathic copyright" is pretty witty in its own right I thought.

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me, or does anyone else find these ".Bruce Perens" responses to be hilarious (aside from the person who modded this Funny)?

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[Hatta]

Unfortunately, one of those developers tells me that every line of code I wrote in creating Busybox is gone from the code base

Shouldn't that be fairly straightforward to verify?

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[Bruce Perens]

Shouldn't that be fairly straightforward to verify?

Yes. But I thought it was better to just walk away from the silly argument. And in any case he's had time enough to remove those lines deliberately.

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just you. :)

Re:BusyBox Funding?

[wellingj]

Yes the troll is funny but its still a troll. It's like laughing at someone getting kicked in the nuts; you feel bad but you can't help it.

Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

I usally respond to Slashdot comments if I see them. But you are also welcome to call me at 510-984-1055, or to email bruce at perens dot com . The phone rings in my office and home, and stops ringing when we would be sleeping.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[AresTheImpaler]

SWEEEET, I now have parens' phone number! I'm going to show it off to all my friends!!! zomg! ;)

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

SWEEEET, I now have parens' phone number! I'm going to show it off to all my friends!!! zomg! ;)

I'm already married :-)

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[eln]

Whoa, that's the exact same number this hot chick gave me at the bar last night. Dammit, I KNEW it was fake. Either that or I had the worst case of beer goggles in history.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[joe 155]

Bruce,

I just wanted to say that whilst I don't always agree with you on everything I think that having someone who is as reasonable as you helping to protect us from the whims of big vendors and especially MS can be no bad thing. I'm not sure how I can support you in any way in this endeavor but I wish you all the luck in the world.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Bruce. In special for not losing your feet from the ground, and being so kind and wise, and for sharing it with all of us.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

I'm not sure how I can support you in any way in this endeavor but I wish you all the luck in the world.

Thanks! I am conscious that nobody listens to me unless I have the support of folks like you. There are mistakes I've made, that I would take back if I could. I'm trying very hard not to make them this time.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

There used to be people who would play "fake Bruce Perens" on Slashdot, a decade before there was a Fake Steve Jobs. Here's a rare, surviving fake bruce, he's currently moderated to -1, good. Please be sure to moderate such folks to oblivion. When this was really bad, it led to me having a signature pointing out that the real Bruce has that four-digit user-id. And then somebody made an Eminem parody song about "The Real Bruce Perens". Oh, the history!

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[unum15]

Regarding Bruce's contact information I think I have the largest claim to nerdiness. I have his cell phone number in my phone(yes I have used it), a girl I like was looking through my contact list and asked who he was. I told her he was a guy I knew in Portland. She went to school in Portland and would like to move back. So I claimed that I could use him to get a job in Portland(Don't really know him that well). So I actually did try using Bruce's contact information to get a girl. Try to beat that for nerdiness!

unum

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Paradise Pete]

I'm already married :-)

And even if you weren't, I'm guessing "Ares the Impaler" would not be high on your list of candidates.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Cylix]

And that is what I love about Bruce...

Back when Bruce and HP/Compaq parted ways, he gave out your info to freely answer questions.

I copied and pasted that into a text file.

Sometime long after, I decided to show how elite I was and I pasted that info into some irc channel.

I remember someone shitting themselves when you answered the phone.

Good times!

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Anonymous Coward]

She must have thought you were Richard Stallman. (Richard hits on *all* females.)

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Nimey]

What's your wife's number? ;-)

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[dpilot]

> There are mistakes I've made, that I would take back if I could. I'm trying
> very hard not to make them this time.

You've just rendered yourself unfit for political office. No true politician admits to a mistake, or says he/she would do something differently. It's much more political to blame the facts.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

I loved that song. I keep trying to think of a way to make it the "musical" question in the Golden Penguin bowl.
But it's too long and too obscene to work :-).

Cheers Bruce and FYI: I fully support your candidacy.

Jeremy.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[deek]

You've just rendered yourself unfit for political office. No true politician admits to a mistake, or says he/she would do something differently. It's much more political to blame the facts.

  True politicians suck. I'd much rather a person who can accept that they've made mistakes, as long as I can trust that they'd learn from them. Bruce would have my vote, just based on that statement alone.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

So, I'm coming to the show this year, for the first time in three years. So, do I get on a team? And do I get to improv and make jokes? None of this doing it straight like DiBona did. Too boring.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what Microsoft is doing is not only legal, by the book and the rules, but perfectly reasonable.

I think you're stupid as a post for trying to "fight" the process. It is what is is.

I say let Microsoft get their OOXML standardized, let it become used internationally.

Heck, let it push out ODF. After all, anything "open source" (gpl, etc) is anti-business.

Stop fighting software patents, companies and lawyers are making millions on this stuff.

What are you trying to do - push the economy more into the toilet than it already is? Put more people out of work?

The world runs on profits, especially the stock market.

If your company makes exactly what it made in profit last year, guess what - your stock goes down.

It's the law of infinite inflation - infinite sales and profits. Consumerism.

Without it the US will falter and 1929 will look like a picnic.

So I say a vote for Bruce is a vote against business and profits and that's as un-american as it gets!
PS- no this is not sarcasm or a joke. I'm dead serious.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[DeVilla]

Bruce, I'm glad to see you are in the running for the OSI board and I have already signed the petition. OSI couldn't find a better person for the job.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[dysfunct]

Bruce,

IMHO you are one of the few "activists" out there who have stayed true to their promises. I signed the petition and you have my full support.

The actual (and *important*) reason why I'm replying: Please be aware that there is at least one outspoken Nay in your petition. Better read through all the comments so that those numbers are accurate and can in no way be held against you.

Thank you for your commitment to Open Source.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, I saw. I'll let him stand, alone so far, and clean up the list when it's settled down.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

Would you be a proponent of the phrase, "OSI Certified," and discourage the use of the far more ambiguous, and non-trademarked term "open source"?

Sorry, no. And this is not because I disrespect anyone, it is because erosion of the term will not improve anything. Although "Open Source" is not federally registered, it is a trademark, and has the same status as "OSI Certified" because the attempt to register "OSI Certified" failed - I don't know why.

"Open Source" includes both source code and the set of rights defined by the Open Source Definition, which I created as the Debian Free Software Guidelines and which only later was taken up by OSI. "OSI Certified" means that OSI agrees that the license in question meets that definition.

I think the term you are looking for is "Disclosed Source Code". That means you can see the source code, but there are not necessarily any rights connected with that. There are many names that can be used for similar things: Shared Source: Microsoft's flavor, various different licenses with no rights in common. Some folks can see source code in some cases. Creative Commons: Usually used for non-software assets, the only common right between all of the licenses is that you can read or view them. And there are things called "crowdsource", "Public Source", and so on.

Bruce

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[totally bogus dude]

Many of your arguments seem to be based on the "broken windows" fallacy.

While companies do make money from litigating patents, that money has to come from somewhere else: and that somewhere else is other companies. It's not creating wealth, it's simply redistributing it. In some cases this may be a good thing, e.g. a small company getting a chunk of cash from a big company that already has more money than it's able to inject into the economy; however, this comes at a cost in innovation and competition.

Software patents are particularly harmful, because software development is one of the few fields with relatively low barriers to entry. A handful of innovative developers can put together something pretty impressive for a few million dollars, but if they do they're almost certainly going to get sued by someone else who isn't pushing the envelope. The best they can hope is to get bought out by a larger company. The US has been the world leader because of constant innovation, but the threat posed by software patents threatens to curtail that.

anything "open source" (gpl, etc) is anti-business

Since you claim to be serious, you really need to remember that very little software is written to be sold. The majority of software is used internally at businesses who have no intention (and often no method) of directly profiting from it. The software is used to improve business efficiency, which in turn allows greater production, hiring of more employees, and therefore leads to infinite sales and profits.

Open source software has the potential to greatly reduce the cost of developing software in-house, which means that more of it can be developed and therefore more benefit can be obtained from it in terms of improved efficiency.

Microsoft Office "Open" XML is a good example of what you don't want, because it means virtually everybody using computers at a business has to pay Microsoft a bunch of money in order to function. This is great for Microsoft and the people they employ and so on; however that's a pretty small part of the entire economy. For the most part, all it does is redirect wealth from a very large chunk of the economy to a very small part. Most people don't in any way benefit from Microsoft's profits.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[dpilot]

I didn't think I needed to add a sarcasm emoticon to my post.

Bruce gets my vote later today, since I was out last night.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the females he meets. For example, he's never hit on my wife.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry, no."

Well, that's unfortunate. Especially if you end up one signature short :P
Joking aside, I'll try and make some time to sign anyway, as I respect all of the other work you do. I greatly appreciate your response.

Although "Open Source" is not federally registered, it is a trademark, and has the same status as "OSI Certified" because the attempt to register "OSI Certified" failed

Ah, I'm familiar with unregistered trademarks, and the obvious problems with defending them. However, it is news to me that "OSI Certified" was also rejected by the USPTO. I'll read up more on that.

I think the term you are looking for is "Disclosed Source Code".

There's lots of terms, and everyone wants to debate the specifics. Myself, I don't mind if I have the right to modify code, but only under a non-commercial license, and would consider such code to be open source. You would disagree (and I understand your rationale behind it), which is obviously not a problem, as we are all entitled to our own opinions.

I guess my concern is that to me it seems that you feel your definition is more entitled than mine, and I question on what authority that is so. I understand you and Eric supposedly coined the term initially, but the meaning is still too generic for my tastes to take such a hostile attitude as recommended by Michael Tiemann.

Ah well, we've both stated our two cents, and we obviously disagree. No sense discussing the matter further. I thank you again for your response.

Best of luck for your petition!

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[Bruce Perens]

I guess my concern is that to me it seems that you feel your definition is more entitled than mine, and I question on what authority that is so.

This is the essence of leadership. I stated clearly how I thought things should be, convinced others and rallied them to the cause of holding that line, and it's stood up pretty well for 10 years.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[deek]

Yep, you're right, I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. It just sounded like you were jaded and cynical. Who knows, maybe you are, and the sarcasm is a mask for how you really feel. ;-)

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[dpilot]

There are things I'm jaded and cynical about, but OSS and Bruce Perens aren't among them. IMHO OSS is actually one of the more important things happening in the world right now. Far too many people measure their self-worth by how much money they can accumulate - to the point where their insane accumulations and ability to accumulate impairs others' ability to simply live. With OSS people (at least some, Linus Torvalds being a prime example) make *enough* money and measure their egos and self-worth in other ways. We could use more of that in the world.

Re:Want to discuss this with me directly?

[deek]

Well said. I completely agree with you.

Please sign the petition

[Bruce Perens]

Please sign here.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Please sign the petition

[Chapter80]

Please sign here.

I'm deaf, you insensitive clod.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Please sign the petition

[tuxgeek]

Petition signed, check.
Keep up the good work Bruce.
We're behind you all the way.
Thank you for all your efforts to keep good software free.
Best regards and good luck
Dennis

Wow.

[inTheLoo]

That is nasty. I am sorry.

He should have a seat on this board.

[rice_burners_suck]

I would have thought that Perens was already on the board. I don't understand why this should take any effort on his part. It goes without saying.

This is a great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I think all of the Bruce Perens on Slashdot should be on the board.

Vote No on proposition 1

[Gothmolly]

Just say no to this blowhard douchebag. Whats next, appointing ESR ?

Re:Vote No on proposition 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Just say no to this blowhard douchebag. Whats next, appointing ESR ?

ESR would be a step up in the world. At least ESR has the sense not to make businesses sorry they ever had anything to do with him or open source.

Don't just vote No - vote HELL, NO!!

PARENT IS A FAKE

[Nimey]

That's not the real Bruce Perens. Note username and high uid.

Perens is Open Sources' Ballmer?

[everphilski]

Perens is standing on a platform of reducing over-representation of vendors in OSI leadership in favor of developers.

DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!!!

No!

[StarKruzr]

The devil you say!

Let me get all of this.

[inTheLoo]

You have been removed from your code by someone who may have done it deliberately and Microsoft is trying to corrupt the open source organization you founded. These must be like twin dissasters to you and I'm both sorry and angry. Bill Gates could not pay to treat you so badly, or could he?

These are exactly the kinds things an evil company like M$ would pull to create division in the community. ESR warned us of this kind of attack about five years ago. I hope it steels you to deal with them.

It's not going to work for M$. They can create rancor. They can steal code. They can corrupt organizations. None of it will eliminate the common desire for freedom and make people go back to the non free way. The worse they act, the faster people will run away. I don't know how anyone can stand working for them now.

Re:Let me get all of this.

[Bruce Perens]

Well, if I had kept running both those projects for 10 or 12 years, this would not have happened. So, it's my fault too. But then again, maybe I would not have a child, and maybe I would not have achieved some of the other important things that I've done. In general, I'm better off for having a life - I was a lot harder to get along with before I had one :-)

Bruce

Re:Let me get all of this.

[inTheLoo]

You should not fault yourself when others do bad things.

Do you think that you could have kept M$ from infiltrating and corrupting OSI? The idea, if I understand it, was to promote software freedom without all of the scary political and moral stuff, to emphasize the performance benefits of peer review and labor savings from collaboration. I have to admit that this undoes a lot of non free propaganda but doesn't it leave the door open for M$ to do what they are doing? Is a definition that's based on procedure instead of principles and rights good enough? Is even a definition based on principles enough to fight off a concentrated and well funded attack?

Unless you condem the central wrong of non free software, the use of secrets to exert control, how can you avoid endorsing it? "Surely it's OK for you to give up a little control so I can make a buck and provide you this great service," is the lie they've used all along. We know that they compound this wrong by anti-competitive practices, but that's an issue linked only by their lack of morals. What concerns me is how to keep the same thing from happening to Debian or GNU as might happen to OSI. I'd like to think the strong moral stance taken by those organizations will prevent monkey business.

Really, I'm an optimist. I don't think M$ is going to fool anyone if they could assimilate OSI. People will continue to demand their software freedom. People come and go but ideas last. Then again, I'm just an armchair revolutionary and I'd like see what you think. Perhaps I'm asking you how you think you can counterbalance $20 billion dollars worth of bullshit.

Re:Let me get all of this.

[Mathinker]

> In general, I'm better off for having a life

I can't begin to tell you how true this rang for me personally (well, rather, I could begin but it would be pointless).

Just out of curiosity, does this developer who displaced you have a life?

I had never thought of this advantage before to FSF's paradigm of assigning copyright: even if you do not retain copyright, ingrates who follow you can't claim copyright either, even if they intentionally rewrite the code you wrote. Might even help to discourage such shenanigans.

Re:Let me get all of this.

[Bruce Perens]

Just out of curiosity, does this developer who displaced you have a life?

Well, I can be a leader, or I can post judgements about the worth of the lives of other Open Source developers on Slashdot. :-)

Thanks

Bruce

Decimation

[mkcmkc]

occurs in 1 of every 10 people...

just dang

[baegucb_18706]

after a weekend of no real news on slashdot, now I have alot to read. I wish life allowed me the time to read and digest the stuff. /shrug and I'l look at it when I have the time. (and Bruce's stuff is always important to see)

Hey Bruce

[Daniel Phillips]

You have my support, hope it helps.

Regards,

Daniel

Cookies Required

[clarkn0va]

why do you need to save information to my computer just so that I can fill in a form?

Because you must be logged in to sign; an unsubstantiated signature isn't worth a hill of beans.

I also whitelist my cookie sites, but as some other user has kindly pointed out in his/her sig, cookies are a sometimes tool, and logins are actually one of those rare instances of a valid use, IMO.

db

Re:Cookies Required

[Anonymous Coward]

why do you need to save information to my computer just so that I can fill in a form? Because you must be logged in to sign; an unsubstantiated signature isn't worth a hill of beans. First of all, considering they ask for your email address so they can verify you, how exactly is it "unsubstantiated"?

And secondly, are you seriously claiming that it's impossible to have a log-in system that doesn't require cookies??!?!

Re:Cookies Required

[clarkn0va]

First of all, considering they ask for your email address so they can verify you, how exactly is it "unsubstantiated"?

Fair enough, substance is relative. I'm not Bruce, so I can't claim to know all his reasons, but left to guess I would say it's probably to empower him to credibly refute any possible claim that ballot-stuffing occurred, i.e., duplicate signatures. Do you not have more than 1 email address? If not, do you not know how to create one in 2 minutes? You may be above such things, but I assure you that a) many are not, and b) Bruce's opposition at the OSI will not hesitate to accuse you or any other signateur of it if he doesn't make the signing process fairly tight.

I don't see any explicit privacy assurances on the registration page; it should probably appear there (people familiar with Bruce's reputation take same as their assurance).

are you seriously claiming that it's impossible to have a log-in system that doesn't require cookies??!?!

No such claim appeared in my post, implied or otherwise.

db

Re:Developer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Perens been an active developer in the last decade? All I've heard of him doing is issuing press releases about how he's quitting one job after a few months and moving to something equally useless.

Well, he's mostly making a name out of being the Jesse Jackson of open source - mostly, he's gets publicity jumping in front of parades that have already left. Not to mention, along with Richard Stallman, he's a walking example of why getting involved in commercial ventures with people who are basically communists is a bad, bad idea, no matter how good the code might be technically.

Respect

[symbolset]

The busybox developers are doing their bit to preserve the GPL. It is unfortunate they are so shortsighted as to neglect the value of your contribution completely.

Your willingness to forbear the issue speaks a great deal about your maturity.

While I still appreciate their continuing efforts on behalf of the GPL, my respect for them is greatly reduced.

Thanks for all you've done for us Bruce. I signed the petition and I'll make sure everybody at work knows they have an opportunity to do the same.

Re:Respect

[Bruce Perens]

I did pass the complaint of another busybox developer on to SFLC after he came to me, and groused a bit to their lawyer at SFLC about the discourtesy of the whole thing while doing that. People would be happy, I think, to see SFLC compensated and those two guys paid for their time. And maybe that's all that happened.

Get the word out

[clarkn0va]

I've posted links on ubuntuforums.org and the m0n0wall forum and mailing list. I suggest others do likewise, keep the discussion up, get the word out.

db

You know this

[symbolset]

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' - Edmund Burke

I still can't believe you posted your phone number on slashdot. Have you got a paypal account where we can send money?

MS open source

[nguy]

Many of Microsoft's so called "open source" efforts don't meet the definition and Microsoft's public statements are deliberately misleading. The purpose os OSI is to protect us from companies like Microsoft, not to support them in their disinformation campaigns,

Phone number

[Bruce Perens]

Have you got a paypal account where we can send money?

Not for this. But do you mean that publishing those has become dangerous? I've had some that have been generally known.

I got four or five phone calls. 30 or 40 emails. 840 signatures so far.

That phone number is on my web site. Weeks can go by with no calls. Most people don't want to bother me until they have something really interesting to say. They will reply to my slashdot and technocrat postings, and less often email, and even less often phone.

Thanks

Bruce

Like and dislike is irrelevant

[Per Abrahamsen]

The question is whether you trust that Microsoft will have the best interests of Open Source in their mind.

If you suspect that sometimes the interest of Microsoft may not align well with the interest of the open source community, you definitely don't want to put them on the board of directors for the organization that defined the term open source, and is still considered the most authoritative source of what is and isn't open source.

Google hasn't invited Steve Ballmer on their board of directors, either.

About that board.

[DaveV1.0]

I see developers and vendors represented, but what about end-users?

Why isn't there any representation for the average people that actually use the software? That is one of the biggest failings of OSS, it rarely takes the end-user into account.

Re:About that board.

[Bruce Perens]

I see developers and vendors represented, but what about end-users?

I'll restate the first point in my campaign: Most Open Source developers are co-developing the software for their own use. They need the software for their own operations, and they are the users who are interested enough in the software to actually want to help.

Open Source doesn't really separate developers from users, anyone can develop. Not everybody knows how, but they can help the team in other ways - tech writing, for example.

So, I think what you are asking for is representation of casual users, those who run the software and haven't found the need to contribute. I think it's a good idea to listen to them about their experience with the software. But if they want a feature that isn't there, and they aren't willing to help (even by paying for that development), there's not much we can do for them.

Thanks

Bruce