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.

[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 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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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.