Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/08/22/commons-clause.html

[ A similar version
was crossposted
on Conservancy’s blog. ]

Proprietary software has always been about
a power
relationship. Copyright and other legal systems give authors the power
to decide what license to choose, and usually, they choose a license that
favors themselves and takes rights and permissions away from others.

The so-called “Commons Clause” purposely confuses and
conflates many issues. The initiative is backed by FOSSA, a company that
sells materiel in the proprietary compliance industrial complex. This clause
recently made news again since other parties have now adopted this same
license.

This proprietary software license, which is not Open Source and does not
respect the four freedoms of Free Software, seeks to hide a power imbalance
ironically behind the guise “Open Source sustainability”. Their
argument, once you look past their assertion that the only way to save Open
Source is to not do open source, is quite plain: If we can’t make money as
quickly and as easily as we’d like with this software, then we have to make
sure no one else can as well.

These observations are not new. Software freedom advocates have always
admitted that if your primary goal is to make money, proprietary software is
a better option. It’s not that you can’t earn a living writing only Free
Software; it’s that proprietary software makes it easier because you have
monopolistic power, granted to you by a legal system ill-equipped to deal
with modern technology. In my view, it’s a power which you don’t deserve — that allows you to
restrict others.

Of course, we all want software freedom to exist and survive sustainably.
But the environmental movement has already taught us that unbridled commerce
and conspicuous consumption is not sustainable. Yet,
companies still adopt strategies like this Commons Clause to prioritize rapid growth and
revenue that the proprietary software industry expects, claiming these strategies bolster
the Commons (even if it is a “partial commons in name only”).
The two goals are often just incompatible.

At Software Freedom Conservancy
(where I work), we ask our projects to be realistic about revenue. We
don’t typically see Conservancy projects grow at rapid rates. They grow at
slow and steady rates, but they grow better, stronger, and more diverse
because they take the time to invite everyone to get involved. The
software takes longer to mature, but when it does it’s more robust and
survives longer.

I’ll take a bet with anyone who’d like. Let’s pick five projects under the
Affero GPL and five projects under the Commons Clause, and then let’s see
which ones survive longer as vibrant communities with active codebases and
diverse contributors.

Finally, it’s not surprising that the authors chose the name
“Commons”. Sadly, “commons” has for many years been
a compromised term, often used by those who want to promote licenses or
organizational models that do not guarantee all four freedoms inherent in
software freedom. Proprietary software is the ultimate tragedy of the
software commons, and while it’s clever rhetoric for our opposition to claim
that they can make FLOSS sustainable by proprietarizing it, such an argument
is also sophistry.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/08/22/commons-clause.html

[ A similar version
was crossposted
on Conservancy’s blog. ]

Proprietary software has always been about
a power
relationship. Copyright and other legal systems give authors the power
to decide what license to choose, and usually, they choose a license that
favors themselves and takes rights and permissions away from others.

The so-called “Commons Clause” purposely confuses and
conflates many issues. The initiative is backed by FOSSA, a company that
sells materiel in the proprietary compliance industrial complex. This clause
recently made news again since other parties have now adopted this same
license.

This proprietary software license, which is not Open Source and does not
respect the four freedoms of Free Software, seeks to hide a power imbalance
ironically behind the guise “Open Source sustainability”. Their
argument, once you look past their assertion that the only way to save Open
Source is to not do open source, is quite plain: If we can’t make money as
quickly and as easily as we’d like with this software, then we have to make
sure no one else can as well.

These observations are not new. Software freedom advocates have always
admitted that if your primary goal is to make money, proprietary software is
a better option. It’s not that you can’t earn a living writing only Free
Software; it’s that proprietary software makes it easier because you have
monopolistic power, granted to you by a legal system ill-equipped to deal
with modern technology. In my view, it’s a power which you don’t deserve — that allows you to
restrict others.

Of course, we all want software freedom to exist and survive sustainably.
But the environmental movement has already taught us that unbridled commerce
and conspicuous consumption is not sustainable. Yet,
companies still adopt strategies like this Commons Clause to prioritize rapid growth and
revenue that the proprietary software industry expects, claiming these strategies bolster
the Commons (even if it is a “partial commons in name only”).
The two goals are often just incompatible.

At Software Freedom Conservancy
(where I work), we ask our projects to be realistic about revenue. We
don’t typically see Conservancy projects grow at rapid rates. They grow at
slow and steady rates, but they grow better, stronger, and more diverse
because they take the time to invite everyone to get involved. The
software takes longer to mature, but when it does it’s more robust and
survives longer.

I’ll take a bet with anyone who’d like. Let’s pick five projects under the
Affero GPL and five projects under the Commons Clause, and then let’s see
which ones survive longer as vibrant communities with active codebases and
diverse contributors.

Finally, it’s not surprising that the authors chose the name
“Commons”. Sadly, “commons” has for many years been
a compromised term, often used by those who want to promote licenses or
organizational models that do not guarantee all four freedoms inherent in
software freedom. Proprietary software is the ultimate tragedy of the
software commons, and while it’s clever rhetoric for our opposition to claim
that they can make FLOSS sustainable by proprietarizing it, such an argument
is also sophistry.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/08/22/commons-clause.html

[ A similar version
was crossposted
on Conservancy’s blog. ]

Proprietary software has always been about
a power
relationship. Copyright and other legal systems give authors the power
to decide what license to choose, and usually, they choose a license that
favors themselves and takes rights and permissions away from others.

The so-called “Commons Clause” purposely confuses and
conflates many issues. The initiative is backed by FOSSA, a company that
sells materiel in the proprietary compliance industrial complex. This clause
recently made news again since other parties have now adopted this same
license.

This proprietary software license, which is not Open Source and does not
respect the four freedoms of Free Software, seeks to hide a power imbalance
ironically behind the guise “Open Source sustainability”. Their
argument, once you look past their assertion that the only way to save Open
Source is to not do open source, is quite plain: If we can’t make money as
quickly and as easily as we’d like with this software, then we have to make
sure no one else can as well.

These observations are not new. Software freedom advocates have always
admitted that if your primary goal is to make money, proprietary software is
a better option. It’s not that you can’t earn a living writing only Free
Software; it’s that proprietary software makes it easier because you have
monopolistic power, granted to you by a legal system ill-equipped to deal
with modern technology. In my view, it’s a power which you don’t deserve — that allows you to
restrict others.

Of course, we all want software freedom to exist and survive sustainably.
But the environmental movement has already taught us that unbridled commerce
and conspicuous consumption is not sustainable. Yet,
companies still adopt strategies like this Commons Clause to prioritize rapid growth and
revenue that the proprietary software industry expects, claiming these strategies bolster
the Commons (even if it is a “partial commons in name only”).
The two goals are often just incompatible.

At Software Freedom Conservancy
(where I work), we ask our projects to be realistic about revenue. We
don’t typically see Conservancy projects grow at rapid rates. They grow at
slow and steady rates, but they grow better, stronger, and more diverse
because they take the time to invite everyone to get involved. The
software takes longer to mature, but when it does it’s more robust and
survives longer.

I’ll take a bet with anyone who’d like. Let’s pick five projects under the
Affero GPL and five projects under the Commons Clause, and then let’s see
which ones survive longer as vibrant communities with active codebases and
diverse contributors.

Finally, it’s not surprising that the authors chose the name
“Commons”. Sadly, “commons” has for many years been
a compromised term, often used by those who want to promote licenses or
organizational models that do not guarantee all four freedoms inherent in
software freedom. Proprietary software is the ultimate tragedy of the
software commons, and while it’s clever rhetoric for our opposition to claim
that they can make FLOSS sustainable by proprietarizing it, such an argument
is also sophistry.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/08/22/commons-clause.html

[ A similar version
was crossposted
on Conservancy’s blog. ]

Proprietary software has always been about
a power
relationship. Copyright and other legal systems give authors the power
to decide what license to choose, and usually, they choose a license that
favors themselves and takes rights and permissions away from others.

The so-called “Commons Clause” purposely confuses and
conflates many issues. The initiative is backed by FOSSA, a company that
sells materiel in the proprietary compliance industrial complex. This clause
recently made news again since other parties have now adopted this same
license.

This proprietary software license, which is not Open Source and does not
respect the four freedoms of Free Software, seeks to hide a power imbalance
ironically behind the guise “Open Source sustainability”. Their
argument, once you look past their assertion that the only way to save Open
Source is to not do open source, is quite plain: If we can’t make money as
quickly and as easily as we’d like with this software, then we have to make
sure no one else can as well.

These observations are not new. Software freedom advocates have always
admitted that if your primary goal is to make money, proprietary software is
a better option. It’s not that you can’t earn a living writing only Free
Software; it’s that proprietary software makes it easier because you have
monopolistic power, granted to you by a legal system ill-equipped to deal
with modern technology. In my view, it’s a power which you don’t deserve — that allows you to
restrict others.

Of course, we all want software freedom to exist and survive sustainably.
But the environmental movement has already taught us that unbridled commerce
and conspicuous consumption is not sustainable. Yet,
companies still adopt strategies like this Commons Clause to prioritize rapid growth and
revenue that the proprietary software industry expects, claiming these strategies bolster
the Commons (even if it is a “partial commons in name only”).
The two goals are often just incompatible.

At Software Freedom Conservancy
(where I work), we ask our projects to be realistic about revenue. We
don’t typically see Conservancy projects grow at rapid rates. They grow at
slow and steady rates, but they grow better, stronger, and more diverse
because they take the time to invite everyone to get involved. The
software takes longer to mature, but when it does it’s more robust and
survives longer.

I’ll take a bet with anyone who’d like. Let’s pick five projects under the
Affero GPL and five projects under the Commons Clause, and then let’s see
which ones survive longer as vibrant communities with active codebases and
diverse contributors.

Finally, it’s not surprising that the authors chose the name
“Commons”. Sadly, “commons” has for many years been
a compromised term, often used by those who want to promote licenses or
organizational models that do not guarantee all four freedoms inherent in
software freedom. Proprietary software is the ultimate tragedy of the
software commons, and while it’s clever rhetoric for our opposition to claim
that they can make FLOSS sustainable by proprietarizing it, such an argument
is also sophistry.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/08/22/commons-clause.html

[ A similar version
was crossposted
on Conservancy’s blog. ]

Proprietary software has always been about
a power
relationship. Copyright and other legal systems give authors the power
to decide what license to choose, and usually, they choose a license that
favors themselves and takes rights and permissions away from others.

The so-called “Commons Clause” purposely confuses and
conflates many issues. The initiative is backed by FOSSA, a company that
sells materiel in the proprietary compliance industrial complex. This clause
recently made news again since other parties have now adopted this same
license.

This proprietary software license, which is not Open Source and does not
respect the four freedoms of Free Software, seeks to hide a power imbalance
ironically behind the guise “Open Source sustainability”. Their
argument, once you look past their assertion that the only way to save Open
Source is to not do open source, is quite plain: If we can’t make money as
quickly and as easily as we’d like with this software, then we have to make
sure no one else can as well.

These observations are not new. Software freedom advocates have always
admitted that if your primary goal is to make money, proprietary software is
a better option. It’s not that you can’t earn a living writing only Free
Software; it’s that proprietary software makes it easier because you have
monopolistic power, granted to you by a legal system ill-equipped to deal
with modern technology. In my view, it’s a power which you don’t deserve — that allows you to
restrict others.

Of course, we all want software freedom to exist and survive sustainably.
But the environmental movement has already taught us that unbridled commerce
and conspicuous consumption is not sustainable. Yet,
companies still adopt strategies like this Commons Clause to prioritize rapid growth and
revenue that the proprietary software industry expects, claiming these strategies bolster
the Commons (even if it is a “partial commons in name only”).
The two goals are often just incompatible.

At Software Freedom Conservancy
(where I work), we ask our projects to be realistic about revenue. We
don’t typically see Conservancy projects grow at rapid rates. They grow at
slow and steady rates, but they grow better, stronger, and more diverse
because they take the time to invite everyone to get involved. The
software takes longer to mature, but when it does it’s more robust and
survives longer.

I’ll take a bet with anyone who’d like. Let’s pick five projects under the
Affero GPL and five projects under the Commons Clause, and then let’s see
which ones survive longer as vibrant communities with active codebases and
diverse contributors.

Finally, it’s not surprising that the authors chose the name
“Commons”. Sadly, “commons” has for many years been
a compromised term, often used by those who want to promote licenses or
organizational models that do not guarantee all four freedoms inherent in
software freedom. Proprietary software is the ultimate tragedy of the
software commons, and while it’s clever rhetoric for our opposition to claim
that they can make FLOSS sustainable by proprietarizing it, such an argument
is also sophistry.

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/redleather/

Post Syndicated from DevOpsCafeAdmin original http://devopscafe.org/show/2018/8/12/devop-cafe-episode-79-joseph-jacks-and-ben-kehoe.html

Kubernetes or Serverless? Yes.

 Triggered by Google Next 2018, John and Damon chat with Joseph Jacks (stealth startup) and Ben Kehoe (iRobot) about their public disagreements — and agreements — about Kubernetes and Serverless. 

Direct download

Follow John Willis on Twitter: @botchagalupe
Follow Damon Edwards on Twitter: @damonedwards
Follow Joseph Jacks on Twitter: @asynchio
Follow Ben Kehoe on Twitter: @ben11kehoe

Notes:

• Damon works for Rundeck 
• John works for SJ Technologies
• Ben works for iRobot and writes on Medium
• Joseph works for a startup in stealth mode and writes on Medium

Please tweet or leave comments or questions below and we’ll read them on the show!

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/forecast/

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/dark-miasma/

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/07/29/gerv.html

Yesterday, we lost an important member of the FLOSS
community. Gervase
Markham finally succumbed to his battle with cancer (specifically,
metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma).

I met Gerv in the early 2000s, after he’d already been diagnosed. He has
always been very public about his illness. He was frank with all who knew
him that his life expectancy was sadly well below average due to that
illness. So, this outcome isn’t a surprise nor a shock, but it is
nevertheless sad and unfortunate for all who knew him.

I really liked Gerv. I found him insightful and thoughtful. His
insatiable curiosity for my primary field — FLOSS licensing —
was a source of enjoyment for me in our many conversations on the subject.
Gerv was always Socratic in his approach: he asked questions, rather than
make statements, even when it was pretty obvious he had an answer of his
own; he liked to spark debate and seek conversation. He thoughtfully
considered the opinions of others and I many times saw his positions change
based on new information. I considered him open-minded and an important
contributor to FLOSS licensing thought.

I bring up Gerv’s open-mindedness because I know that many people didn’t
find him so, but, frankly, I think those folks were mistaken. It is well
documented publicly that Gerv held what most would consider particularly
“conservative values”. And, I’ll continue with more frankness:
I found a few of Gerv’s views offensive and morally wrong. But Gerv was
also someone who could respectfully communicate his views. I never felt
the need to avoid speaking with him or otherwise distance myself. Even if
a particular position offended me, it was nevertheless clear to me that
Gerv had come to his conclusions by starting from his (a priori) care and
concern for all of humanity. Also, I could simply say to Gerv: I really
disagree with that so much, and if it became clear our views were just
too far apart to productively discuss the matter further, he’d happily and
collaboratively find another subject for us to discuss. Gerv was a
reasonable man. He could set aside fundamental disagreements and find
common ground to talk with, collaborate with, and befriend those who
disagreed with him. That level of kindness and openness is rarely seen in
our current times.

In fact, Gerv gave me a huge gift without even knowing it: he really
helped me understand myself better. Specifically, I have for decades
publicly stated my belief that the creation and promulgation of proprietary
software is an immoral and harmful act. I am aware that many people (e.g.,
proprietary software developers) consider that view offensive. I learned
much from Gerv about how to productively live in a world where the majority
are offended by my deeply held, morally-founded and well-considered
beliefs. Gerv taught me how to work positively, productively and in a
friendly way alongside others who are offended by my most deeply-held
convictions. While I mourn the loss of Gerv today, I am so glad that I had
that opportunity to learn from him. I am grateful for the life he had and
his work.

Gerv’s time with us was too short. In response, I suggest that we look at
his life and work and learn from his example. Gerv set aside his illness
for as long as possible to continue good work in FLOSS. If he can do that,
we can all be inspired by him to set aside virtually any problem to work
hard, together, for important outcomes that are bigger than us all.

[Finally, I should note that the text above was vetted and approved by
Gerv, a few months ago, before his death. I am also very impressed that he
planned so carefully for his own death that he contacted Conservancy to
seek to assign his copyrights for safe keeping and took the time to review
and comment on the text above. ]