What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?

Isn't It Obvious? by eldavojohn · 2010-04-30 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny

He was invited to One Microsoft Way in Redmond, WA and while there discussing standards had a very unfortunate ... shall we say ... "accident?" Which left his voice sounding very metallic and his movements very jerky and unnatural. It was shortly after this that he stood up at the next White House IT meeting and declared, "Whitehouse.gov should be running on Silverlight and Silverlight only let's set so double the killer delete select all blue blue blue blue blue blue ... " At which point the administration decided that it just wasn't working out and removed the position quietly altogether and unexisted Mr. McNealy (or what was left of him anyway).

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Lumpy · 2010-04-30 05:40 · Score: 4, Funny

in other words.....
Eaten by a Grue?

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Em+Emalb · 2010-04-30 05:56 · Score: 4, Funny

He was outsourced.
yes, that's right, the OpenSource Advisor was Outsourced to India. He now goes by the title Indian Outsourced OpenSource Advisor. (But his friends call him Bob)

--
Sent from your iPad.
Re:Isn't It Obvious? by dkleinsc · 2010-04-30 06:05 · Score: 5, Funny

In other words, it all started like this:
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of the White House, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
> open mailbox
Opening the mailbox reveals a leaflet.
> read leaflet
(taken)
"WELCOME TO POLITICS!
POLITICS is a game of adventure, danger, and low cunning. In it you will explore some of the most amazing territory ever seen by mortals. No country should be without one!"

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-30 07:08 · Score: 5, Informative

He was only ever an Open Source evangelist when it was opportunistic to be one. I spent enough time fighting him when he was in anti-open-source mode.

--
Bruce Perens.
Re:Isn't It Obvious? by jeffmeden · 2010-04-30 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

You may already know this but the post you replied to was an uber-troll that has been showing up several times in just about every article. Please, don't feed the trolls.
Re:Isn't It Obvious? by fishexe · 2010-04-30 07:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

He was only ever an Open Source evangelist when it was opportunistic to be one. I spent enough time fighting him when he was in anti-open-source mode.
Bruce Perens for National Open Source Adviser!

I move we start a letter-writing campaign to president Obama.

--
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Re:Isn't It Obvious? by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-30 08:50 · Score: 5, Informative

I already advise some other countries.

--
Bruce Perens.

He was replaced... by NevarMore · 2010-04-30 05:20 · Score: 4, Funny

...with a small shell script.

Who wants to know? by Obama · 2010-04-30 05:20 · Score: 5, Funny

Who wants to know?

I've never met the man. by AnonymousClown · 2010-04-30 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

But from what I've read about him and the things he was quoted for, I really don't see him fitting in at Washington.

The same goes for: Gates, Jobs, Ellison, and every other Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

--
RIP America

July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

Re:Not a lobbyist by JesseL · 2010-04-30 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just because a lobbyist has no legal authority doesn't mean they're powerless or without influence.

Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"

He's abandonware by elrous0 · 2010-04-30 05:29 · Score: 4, Funny

He's still got a page at Sourceforge, but he hasn't been updated in months and his developer stopped answering emails.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Confirmation hell? by l2718 · 2010-04-30 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I would not be surprised if McNealy's appointment is stuck in confirmation hell. He probably requires confirmation by the Senate (see Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution). The Obama administration has been very slow in getting their people confirmed, in part because of the concentration on the Supreme Court vacancies, in part because of Republican intransigence (continuing the Democratic intransigence during the Bush administration, which harks back to the conflicts with Clinton, and back and forth it goes ...).

Re:Confirmation hell? by geekoid · 2010-04-30 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

except now the Republicans have gone crazy with here Obama hate.
It could just be their turn at the cycle, but have you watched? jeez, they literally say one thing, then say the exact opposite an hour later.
I have never seen any party be this bad at it. Sure, a party will try to block, but usually it has a specific reason.
It's one thing to have issue with a specific policy, and the facts there in, but lately it's just been about making stuff up.
And the worst part is when you specifically point out when they are speaking lies, the people who are behind that just pick the lie they want to believe and refuse to acknowledge they other thing that was said. Even when you show them a video or transcript of it happening..
I know this will be taken as some sort of anti republican/pro democratic rant. but it's not. It's observation that it's just gotten stupid.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Confirmation hell? by Wyatt+Earp · 2010-04-30 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm a Republican and I agree, it has gotten stupid.
It was stupid when the liberals were going after Bush following his reelection, but this is extra stupid.
Re:Confirmation hell? by Enderandrew · 2010-04-30 05:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?
It isn't new.
I'm generally of the opinion that if you truly believe the other party is completely evil, and your party is perfect, you're delusional. Both parties are largely filled with corrupt politicians who want to line their pockets, and cater to special interest groups. Both parties overspend and pass mammoth bills filled with crazy riders. Both parties have compromised personal liberty to appease knee-jerk reactions. Both parties have helped build a larger federal government.
They flip-flop on policy so much, it is hard to keep track. For instance, when McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system, every Republican loved it, and every Democrat hated it. When Pelosi proposed a cap-and-trade system, ever Republican hated it, and every Democrat loved it. Which is it?
When McCain was pushing for oil drilling, Pelosi threatened to drill in people's heads because it was such a stupid idea. When Obama suggested oil drilling, Pelosi said it was a great idea.
Look at major players in the Liberal/Democrat party like Biden and Reid. Both pushed for warrantless wiretapping very early, even though it is supposedly against the common Democrat platform. Biden was pushing for it after Oklahoma City, and bragged about it during the debates.
Look at Reid's Wikipedia page. It sure reads like a Conservative platform on many levels. And yet he is one of the highest ranking Liberals. The truth is both parties are far more similar than anyone wants to admit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Re:Confirmation hell? by lwsimon · 2010-04-30 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Both parties have gotten to the point where they don't have a coherent platform anymore. The GOP is "anti-Democrat" and the Democrats are "anti-GOP". This has allowed those with their own agendas to rise to power, such as Obama, Pelosi, Palin, Huckabee, etc.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:Confirmation hell? by Hatta · 2010-04-30 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have never seen any party be this bad at it.
I have never seen any party be this good at it. It's working out well for them. The constant repetition of bald face lies is shaping public opinion.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Confirmation hell? by lwsimon · 2010-04-30 06:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?
It isn't new.
I'm generally of the opinion that if you truly believe the other party is completely evil, and your party is perfect, you're delusional. Both parties are largely filled with corrupt politicians who want to line their pockets, and cater to special interest groups. Both parties overspend and pass mammoth bills filled with crazy riders. Both parties have compromised personal liberty to appease knee-jerk reactions. Both parties have helped build a larger federal government.
They flip-flop on policy so much, it is hard to keep track. For instance, when McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system, every Republican loved it, and every Democrat hated it. When Pelosi proposed a cap-and-trade system, ever Republican hated it, and every Democrat loved it. Which is it?
When McCain was pushing for oil drilling, Pelosi threatened to drill in people's heads because it was such a stupid idea. When Obama suggested oil drilling, Pelosi said it was a great idea.
Look at major players in the Liberal/Democrat party like Biden and Reid. Both pushed for warrantless wiretapping very early, even though it is supposedly against the common Democrat platform. Biden was pushing for it after Oklahoma City, and bragged about it during the debates.
Look at Reid's Wikipedia page. It sure reads like a Conservative platform on many levels. And yet he is one of the highest ranking Liberals. The truth is both parties are far more similar than anyone wants to admit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
Reid is a great example -- I am constantly defending him in the firearms community, as he has always been a friend to gun owners. He's a liberal in many regards, and there are lots of valid issues that I take with his voting record - but that isn't one of them.

--
Learn about Photography Basics.
Re:Confirmation hell? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-30 06:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate? It isn't new.
No, but not being new doesn't make it the same, and because Democrats opposed Republican administrations in the past doesn't mean that their tactics were on the same level.
Republicans have set filibustering records and then shattered those records in term after term.

Republicans last night broke the all-time Senate record for filibusters in a two-year term when they forced the 62nd cloture vote of this session on the omnibus appropriations bill, H.R. 2764. The previous record of 61 cloture votes in a two-year term was set in 2001-2002, the last time the GOP comprised the minority in the Senate.
Just halfway through the session, they broke the old filibustering record that was set by them.
Similarly, we have Republicans placing holds on every single one of Obama's nominees -- something that has never happened. Why? In this particular case, it was so Senator Shelby could get some pork for his state. But there has been a great deal of other unprecedented obstructionism on the part of Republicans toward Democrats. For example, accidentally "losing" their voting cards to delay everything, preventing the usual unanimous consent motions to go about business, shutting down the Senate at 2PM. A classic example of this would be Republicans filibustering a defense spending bill just so it would take longer to get to the filibuster vote on health care reform. (Imagine what the media reaction to that would be if Democrats had done it -- instead we get deafening silence.)
Yeah, Democrats have obstructed Republicans in the past. But to compare that with what's going on now -- or in previous Republican-minority Congresses -- is completely insane. We're talking about an entirely new extreme (which the Democrats have been ineffectually responding to with "well, maybe if we play nice they'll play nice again!") that has never before been seen.
Re:Confirmation hell? by butalearner · 2010-04-30 06:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?
To this level? No. Have a look at the Senate voting history. Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting. Now go back and click on 2005. Pick any issue you want, and either some Democrats voted with Republicans or vice versa. It's not just people's imagination, the country really is more polarized than ever.
And the worst part about it is that the rest of your post is correct.
Re:Confirmation hell? by CannonballHead · 2010-04-30 06:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting.

I hate to bring it up, but correlation != causation ;) No, what I mean is this: it could be that the agenda for 2010 by Democrats happen to be things Republicans particularly oppose, thus they will be the "exact opposite." Back in 2005, perhaps the agenda on the floor was not quite so divisive.
In other words, you can't just expect two parties to ALWAYS be bipartisan on EVERY issue or set of issues. I would not call Democrats "partisan" because a Republican-controlled senate and house happened to start bringing up bills that Democrats really, really, really dislike. I don't expect them to ignore their conscience (do politicians have those? ;) ) simply in the name of "bipartisanship."
And frankly, it would appear that the ignore-what-you-really-think-and-just-vote-with-us kind of bipartisanship is the only kind of bipartisanship that is acceptable to Democrats at the moment. Could be the only kind Republicans like, too, but Republicans aren't the one that are in the majority and thus are able to force the issue, bipartisan or not... thus I am more critical of Democrats right now, because they are the ones in the majority :)
Re:Confirmation hell? by spun · 2010-04-30 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

But if you look at the issues Republicans oppose, you will find that they supported many of those same issues when proposed by Republicans. Like the bailout. No, this is obstructionism, pure and simple. Republicans feel they can not let Obama rack up too many wins. They know their only real chance to regain power is if Obama fails. The Republicans want Obama, and our country, to fail, and so they oppose everything he does, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Confirmation hell? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-30 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

As any college aged revolutionary will tell you- the Democrats are NOT liberal.
And any libertarian will say the Republicans are not conservative.
however, the amount of demonization between the two reads like an absurdist play.
Re:Confirmation hell? by Cytotoxic · 2010-04-30 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is an analysis with one eye closed. Tip O'Neill and Reagan were as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, but they actively worked together on many different pieces of legislation. Clinton owes a large percentage of his legacy to legislation that was pushed by Newt Gingrich. Late in the Clinton administration this cooperative/adversarial relationship began to seriously break down. During Bush II it pretty much died. Obama took the reigns with completely unassailable majorities in both houses and the White House and Congressional leadership governed that way, aggressively leaving the opposition out of even the most trivial policy discussions. During this period the Republicans couldn't obstruct a damn thing. They were able to get a handful of democrats to vote with them in opposition on a few select issues - but calling those "Republican obstructionism" is quite the stretch. This all changed with the Mass. election. Now the Republican opposition actually has a chit in the game, albeit a very small one. The White House and Congressional leadership have not come around on this yet, and are still governing as if they have an unassailable majority. After the mid-term election shaves a few more seats off of his majority I think we'll see the President begin to make good on those campaign promises to work across party lines on a few select issues. And magically the filibusters will fade into memory.

Re:Not a lobbyist by Bill+Dog · 2010-04-30 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Lobbyists block appointments like unions pass legislation.

--
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100

Sun's "open" play was never convincing for me by Bearhouse · 2010-04-30 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Am I the only one here who never really bought-in to Sun's latter-day 'open' evangelism?

To me Sun's 'open' efforts always seemed to me to fall into one of the following categories:
1. "Fsuk M$!" - e.g. Open Office
2. Forced to do it by their own guys - e.g. Java
3. Desperate attempt to stay alive/relevant (too late) - e.g. 'open' Solaris, (a bit of a FOSS joke, since most of the work was done by Sun employees)

I'll admit that I'm not fan of Scott McNealy, who - in my opinion - failed to navigate the dotcom bust, and subsequent massive fall in hardware revenues, and then presided over the gradual, sad demise of a formerly pretty good company.
Putting aside my bias, I'll still advance that there are plenty of other people better qualified to be a FOSS tzar.
Your nominations?

Re:Sun's "open" play was never convincing for me by Bruce+Perens · 2010-04-30 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

I spent a good deal of time fighting him when he was in his anti-open-source mode and didn't believe in his conversion either.

--
Bruce Perens.

Open sourced it. by kiehlster · 2010-04-30 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny

It's even more obvious than you think. He's open-sourced the advisory position so anyone can fill the position and make changes.

Re:Not a lobbyist by bigredradio · 2010-04-30 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?

Well...... yes.

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX

Re:Let's check the timeline by dschl · 2010-04-30 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Gates applauds Indian rich guy for sharing wealth: 4.2010 - saying that the norm in the US is 20% and that US benefactors need to give more along the lines of 40% ~ 50% while not mentioning that he & Melinda give along the lines of 1% ~ 2%.

Please provide a reference for your claim.

According to Businessweek, Bill Gates has given $28 billion out of a net worth of $59 billion, placing him second on the list after Warren Buffett. That appears to be considerably higher than 1-2%.

--
Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious

Re:Not a lobbyist by mkiwi · 2010-04-30 05:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Did you learn everything about politics and government from Schoolhouse Rock?

Actually, I think that was the Simpsons.

Re:Not a lobbyist by vxice · 2010-04-30 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Lobbyists have no power when the electorate is well informed and active. WE are failing and causing these problems by allowing these lobbyists to have influence. The only way a lobbyist can have influence is if the gain from more money to a campaign offsets the number of people who leave because a politician was bought off and voted against his constituents interest. Please keep money in government especially when it helps the candidates I like. If a politician votes against my interests I refuse to vote for him. No amount of fancy campaign ads will ever change that. However there are more people who will vote for a candidate just because of a fancy and expensive ad. These people offset me and many other voters who vote not for nicest campaign ad but voting record and their ability to represent us. This is the fundamental problem with our country. Believing anything else is delusional and seeking a simple short term solution, the voters are the problem, until they take their civic duty seriously by ignoring nice haircuts and expensive ads and voting for actual substance we will not have a government that represents us.

--
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini

I'm sure this by geekoid · 2010-04-30 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

"You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."

didn't help.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Advisor? by hondo77 · 2010-04-30 05:55 · Score: 5, Informative

According to this article, he was merely asked to write a paper. That hardly sounds like it was a full-time position as an advisor to the administration.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.

If only Obama knew.... by bm_luethke · 2010-04-30 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe there is a option not listed - Obama lied in order to help him get votes.

I know it's shocking that a career politician that rapidly rose through the ranks of Chicago in one of the the most corrupt districts there would somehow not be totally truthful. After all he talks nice and chanted "Yes we can" over and over and over. I'm certain, absolutely certain, that if you could just get a message through to him he would realize the enormous accident that occurred and go have a nice long talk with his advisers and other appointees (whom he had *no* idea were doing all these bad things) and fix everything right up.

Really, even if you think everything he has done so far is peachy keen and figure the guy is mostly honest - he is still a politician. At best I would say an open source advisory is so down the priority list that it will likely never happen. Lets face it - he promised to nix the "do not ask do not tell" policy regarding gays in the military, that one simply takes him to write out an official statement and it has been over a year (and promised more than once, basically every time that segments polling numbers really start dropping) and still not done.

In his own auto-biography he points out that people will necessarily be disappointed in him as he presents himself as a blank slate and allows people to write whatever they want on it. He isn't a blank slate - the Obama you are looking for only existed in your mind, not in reality. He never went anyway as he didn't exist. Man many many others are slowly coming to realize this, sadly Obama the idealist (whichever one you wanted to see) doesn't really exist, Obama the politician is the only one that does. He will continue to milk the blank slate and hope that the person you once saw will "return" for as long as he can too - that is the nature of a politician. Some groups have learned how to manipulate a politician and treat him as such (assuming they have enough money and or votes), others sit around confused.

But if it makes you feel better - I'll leave this one generic as it is currently the answer given for all of them: Obama has WAY too much to worry with on his plate. What with all these global crises, economic downtime, and the seditious Tea Partiers blocking real reform it is no wonder he hasn't got to yet. Since he inherited such a mess it will most likely take longer than his Presidency to fix it and get on with the real work that America needs and address your issue.

And as long as that boiler plate works with his core group he will run with it too.

--
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it

Re:If only Obama knew.... by GoChickenFat · 2010-04-30 07:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

"seditious Tea Partiers blocking real reform" - keep spreading the FUD. Tea Partiers have no vote...they cannot block reform on their own. The House, Senate and Whitehouse are controlled by Democrats! Attend an actual Tea Party rally before you comment. You might find that it is nothing like how it's beeing portrayed.
Re:If only Obama knew.... by bandini · 2010-04-30 08:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Saw 'em when they came to DC. They seem pretty much exactly as they're being portrayed - or else they go to great lengths to conform to the 'bunch of cranks and racists' stereotype. In which case I want to congratulate whoever it is that's in charge of making sure every single sign they hold aloft has misspelled words and/or crudely expressed bigotry on it.

--
Give people tools that guarantee their right to work with independent efficiency. - Ivan Illich

Re:And the answer is... by biryokumaru · 2010-04-30 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Who would have modded that recursive?

--
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!

Re:Not a lobbyist by JesseL · 2010-04-30 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lobbyists aren't always bad, they don't always achieve their goals by unscrupulous means, and they don't always represent corporate interests with tons of money to throw around.

Lobbyists are an exceptionally effective means for people to communicate with their elected representatives, being a sort of representative themselves. They can provide a clear voice for large groups of similarly minded people, who would otherwise be lost in the noise.

--
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"

Hi, Summary: RTFA -- one paper was asked for by DragonWriter · 2010-04-30 06:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Back in January of 2009, various news articles announced that former Sun CEO Scott McNealy was to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser.

Actually, the one news article linked from the text "various news articles" in the summary, as well as every other web source I can find, indicates McNealy was asked to write one position paper on the use of open source software by the administration, and that was apparently presented to the Administration shortly after the request was made (this article from late February discusses some actions that occurred after the paper was presented.)

The issue was never about McNealy being hired as for the position of "Open Source Adviser", it was about McNealy providing one-time advice on the use of open source software.

Re:And the answer is... by Deimos24601 · 2010-04-30 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny

http://www.google.com/search?q=recursion Check out the "Did you mean:" option.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-04-30 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not a lobbyist by NevarMore · 2010-04-30 06:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

+1, the EFF is a lobby.

Re:Not a lobbyist by spun · 2010-04-30 07:02 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal
For policemen
To beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
'Least I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:And the answer is... by Machtyn · 2010-04-30 07:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Strangely, clicking on the "Did you mean:" option returns a different list (or order) than the first query. Or, at least, it did for me on the first (uncached) attempt.

Re:What's better? by butterflysrage · 2010-04-30 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

so are you saying the guy who tries to do good without killing but fails (either at avoiding deaths or the sucess of X) is worse then the guy who tries to do bad with killing and gets it done?

a car analogy would have been so much better...

--
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.

Do Some Research!!! by Brian+Edwards · 2010-04-30 07:21 · Score: 5, Informative

You've got your facts wrong. Scott McNealy was never slated to become the Obama administration's Open Source Technology adviser. According to the articles you referenced, all he was going to do was write a paper:

Scott McNealy "revealed he has been asked to prepare a paper on the subject (open source technologies and products) for the new administration."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7841486.stm

"According to BBC News, the Obama administration has asked Sun chairman McNealy for a position statement justifying the administration's use of open source software. The BBC wasn't clear on who specifically asked him, but McNealy's spokesperson, on a query by the Linux community, acknowledged that McNealy had been meeting over the last year with members of the administration's new technology initiative, which apparently led to this request."
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Sun-s-McNealy-Advises-Obama-Administration-on-Open-Source

I don't know if Scott ever got around to writing that paper. Searching the White House website for papers on Open Source, the only one I found was here:

Open Source Software and Cyber Defense
A White Paper provided to the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council as input to the White House Review of Communications and Information Infrastructure.
Bob Gourley, Chief Technology Officer, Crucial Point LLC
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cyber/Gourley_Bob_Open_Source_Software_and_Cyber_Defense_01_April_2009.pdf

"seditious Tea Partiers"? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-30 07:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whatever happened to "Dissent is patriotic"?

Slashdot Mirror

What Happened To Obama's Open Source Adviser?

50 of 296 comments (clear)