Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/05/03/mono.html

Both RMS and
I
have been critical of Mono, which is an implementation of
Microsoft’s C# language infrastructure for GNU/Linux systems.
(Until recently, at Novell, Miguel De
Icaza has led a team of developers working on Mono.)

Most have probably heard
that the
Attachmate acquisition of Novell completed last week, and
that reports
of who will be fired because of the acquisition have begun to
trickle. This
evening, it’s
been reported that the developers working on Mono will be among those
losing their jobs.

In the last few hours, I’ve seen
some
folks indicating that this is a good outcome. I worry that
this sort of response is somehow inspired by the criticisms and
concerns about Mono that software freedom advocates like myself
raised. I thus seek to clarify the concerns regarding
Mono, and point out why it’s unfortunate that these developers won’t
work on Mono anymore.

First of all, note that the concerns about Mono are that many Microsoft
software patents likely read on any C# implementation,
and Microsoft’s
so-called “patent promise” is not adequate to defend the
software freedom community. Anyone who uses Mono faces
software patent danger from Microsoft. This is precisely why using
Mono to write new applications, targeted for GNU/Linux and other
software freedom systems, should be avoided.

Nevertheless, Mono should exist, for at least one important
reason: some developers write lots and lots of new code
on Microsoft systems in C#. If those developers decide they want to
abandon Microsoft platforms tomorrow and switch to GNU/Linux, we don’t
want them to change their minds and decide to stay with Microsoft merely
because GNU/Linux lacks a C# implementation.
Obviously, I’d support convincing those developers to learn
another language system so they won’t write more code in C#, but
initially, the lack of Free Software C# implementation might impede their
switch to Free Software.

This is a really subtle point that has been lost in the anti-Mono
rhetoric. I am not aware of any software freedom advocate who wants
Mono to cease to exist. The problem that I and others point out is
this: it’s dangerous to write new code that relies on technology that’s
likely patented by Microsoft — a company
that’s known
to
shake down
or even sue
Free-Software-using companies over patents. But the value of Mono (while
much more limited than its strongest proponents claim) is still apparent
and real: it has a good chance to entice developers living in a purely
Microsoft environment to switch to a software freedom environment. It was
therefore valuable that Novell was funding developers to work on Mono;
it’s a bad outcome for software freedom that those developers will lose
their jobs. Finally, while perhaps some of those developers might get jobs
working on more urgent Free Software tasks, many will likely end up in jobs
doing proprietary software development. And developers switching from
Free Software work to proprietary software work is surely always
a loss for software freedom.

Update (2011-05-04):
ciarang
pointed out to me
that Mono
for Android is proprietary software. As such, it’s certainly better
if no one is working on that proprietary project anymore. However, I
would make an educated guess that most of the employed Mono developers at
Novell were working on the Free Software components, so the above analysis
in the main blog post still likely applies in most cases.

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

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/04/29/lfnw.html

Those of you that follow me on
identi.ca already know that I caught
a rhinovirus, and
was very sick while at
the 2011
Linux Collaboration Summit (LCS). Unfortunately, the illness got worse
since I “worked through” it while at LCS, and I was too
sick to work the entire week afterward (the week of 2011-04-11).

I realized thereafter that, before the conference, I forgot to even
mention online that I was speaking and
chairing
the legal track at LCS. I can’t blame that on the illness, since I
should have noted it on my blog the week before.

So, just barely, I’m posting ahead of time about my appearances this
weekend at LinuxFest Northwest (LFNW). I have been asked
to give four (!) talks in two days; and unfortunately three are
scheduled almost right in a row in one day (I begged the organizers to
fix it so I was giving two each day, but they’d already locked in the
schedule, and even though I told them within hours of the schedule going
up, they weren’t able to change it.)

It’s a rather amusing story how I ended up giving four talks. Most of
you that go to many conferences (and particularly those that speak at
them) know that the hardest part of speaking is preparing a new talk. I
learned in graduate school that you must practice talks to keep
the quality high, and if a talk is new, I usually try to practice
twice. That’s a pretty large time investment, not to mention the
research that has to go into a talk.

So, what I typically do is have between three and five talks that are
“active” on my playlist. I’ll keep a talk in rotation for
about ten to eighteen months and then discontinue it (unless there’s new
at least 40% new material that I can cycle into, which I sort of
consider more-or-less a new talk).

Often, I’ll submit up to four active talks to a given conference. I do
this for a couple of reasons. The first and foremost reason is to give
choice to the program chairs. If I’m prepared to speak on an array of
topics, I’d rather offer up what I can to the chairs so that they can
pick the best fit for the track they wish to construct. The second
reason is, quite frankly, is for when I really want to go to a
conference. My employer only funds my travel if I am speaking at a
conference, so sometimes, if I really want to go, I have to increase my
odds as much as possible that a talk will be accepted. Multiple
submissions usually help in this regard (although I can imagine it may
hurt one’s chances in some rare cases).

Now, something happened with LFNW that’s never happened to me before:
the organizers accepted three of my four talk submissions, and
wait-listed one of them! I wrote to them immediately telling them I was
honored they wanted so many of my talks, and that I was of course happy
to give all of them if they really wanted me to. Then, I happened to be
working on my talks last weekend when the LFWN organizers were updating
the schedule, and suddenly, I reloaded the page and saw they’d added the
fourth talk as well!

So, in the next two days, I’m giving four talks at LFNW! Most of them
are talks I’ve given before (or at least, given substantially similar
talks), so I am not worried about preparation (although I may have to
skip any social events on Saturday night to practice the three-in-row
for Sunday). What I’m worried about is that my voice has just
recovered in the last few days from that long-lasting illness, and I am
a bit afraid it won’t hold out through all four. So, if you’re at LFNW
and notice I’m more quiet than usual in the hallway conversations (I’m
not known for my silence, after all ;), it’s because I’m saving my voice
for my talks!

Anyway, here’s the run down of my LFWN talks:

• On Saturday 30 April 2011 at 14:30, I’ll give my talk which I debuted
  at LCS: 12 Years of FLOSS License Compliance: A
  Historical Perspective
• On Sunday 1 May 2011 at 11:00, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, With Software as a Service, Is
  Only the Network Luddite Free?
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 13:30, I’ll reprise a talk I’ve not given for
  a quite a while, GPLv3: Better Copyleft for Developers and
  Users (my GPLv3 advocacy talk, which is oft-cited
  by Fontana, although I
  can’t tell if he’s mocking me
  or not).
• On Sunday 2011-05-01 at 14:30, I’ll give the talk I debuted as a
  keynote at Indiana Linux Fest: Software Freedom
  Conservancy: Non-Profit Infrastructure for FLOSS.

If you’re not able to attend LFNW, I’ll try to live-dent as much as I
can (when I’m not speaking, which will actually be almost half the
conference ;). Watch my identi.ca stream for the #lfnw tag.
In particular, I’m really looking forward to Tom
“spot” Callaway‘s
talk. I really want to
understand his reasoning for not signing the Chromium
CLA, since, as Fontana suggests, it might illuminate the reasoning
why developers might oppose CLAs for permissively licensed projects.

By way of previews of what conferences I’ll be at soon (I’ll try to
blog more fully about them a week before they start), I’ll be giving
keynotes at both Samba
XP and LinuxTag in
a few weeks (both about GPL compliance). I’ll also be speaking about
GPL compliance at OSCON in late July, and I might be on a panel
at the Desktop Summit. I hope to see many of you at one of these
events.

I should also apologize to the excellent folks who run RMLL (aka the
Libre Software Meeting) in France each year. When I came back so ill
from LCS and lost that whole week of work because of it, I took a hard
look at my 2011 travel schedule and I just had to cut something. I’m
sorry it had to be RMLL, but I hope to make it up to them in a future
year. (I actually had to do something similar to the LFNW guys in 2010,
which I’m about to make up for this weekend!)