That's a large amount to cover. What's your projected time frame? An hour? Three?
2005-10-09 07:53 am (UTC)
45 minutes will probably be pushing people's attention spans unless I do a damn good job or people really don't want to work.
I can talk quick, though. The point isn't to indoctrinate everybody and makes them all experts, but just introduce them to the ideas.
and you're going to be lovely and put a little linky in here for us to read it too so that we can finally understand all these things too yes? (please?) hee.
2005-10-09 07:53 am (UTC)
I haven't made it yet. :-)
Neat. If you come up with slides or something, would you be willing to share?
2005-10-09 04:23 pm (UTC)
I would also be interested in seeing your notes/slides/script,etc.
You should consider publishing them. I know it has all been done before, but many of us out here really should be doing the same thing at our places of work, and your presentation looks like the best overall look at the subject I have seen in a while.
well isn't all that the POINT of a presentation on open source?
if they knew ALL of that, why would they go to the presentation?
One random interesting tidbit here: ibiblio hosts speakers and then distributes their talk as video and audio. Apparently Larry Lessig (the first speaker) advised* the following speakers to use a CC license instead of releasing them into the Public Domain. He seemed to have some reservations about using PD itself, not with the unbounded release of the materials.
I haven't heard too much about this since: has anybody else run into this? If i'm not GPL'ing code, i'll often use either the LGPL or PD. Since i heard about this discussion, though, i'm a bit leery of using PD myself.
* The materials weren't initially available; when they were to be published, a mail went out to several speakers (Cory, Eblen, Roblimo, and Larry iirc) to get releases and blah blah blah.
Also, i no longer work for ibiblio, so i'm now free to speak about these things. UNC ITS has a rather obnoxious media communications policy, which i am also now free to speak about.
There are some legal issues internationally with public domain. Some countries don't have such a thing. Some don't allow you to explicitly release into it. Some have unwaivable "moral rights" (although these cause a ton of trouble for CC licenses too). In reality, though, all of the existing licenses have problems—if you don't believe me, search Google for debian-legal's analysis of the Creative Commons licenses.
My rule of thumb is to just pick the license which is closest to the terms you want and use it; if you're a reasonable person, it won't matter if Fooistan grants you more rights than you really want to have—you'll just choose not to assert them.
that pretty much just blew my mind. share your wealth of knowledge!!
The fact your audience isn't technical also means you've got zero chance of any obnoxious nerds correcting and arguing with you ;)
2005-10-09 12:33 pm (UTC)
Random thought: what's your favourite FOSS licence? (For example, for code you write yourself for fun, where you don't have to consult anyone about how to license it.) X/MIT? BSD? LGPL? GPL? None of the above?
(I tended to use BSD, FWIW, but am considering moving to X/MIT.)
2005-10-09 01:03 pm (UTC)
I have never heard of "Shared Source" (assuming the capitals are Magic.)
I think all your illustrations should come from lovesraymond
2005-10-09 04:28 pm (UTC)
It is a Micro$oft thing, and as such, "Shared Source" is not free.Microsoft Shared Source Initiative Home Page
A good reason why it is important for someone like Brad to be giving such a talk are companies like MSFT confusing the issue, and the pointy haired bosses with terms like "Shared Source".
Are you going to make a PowerPoint presentation, hand out the slide deck, show the slide deck, and read off of it? Those are the best presentations.
especially when the handouts have lines next to the slides for taking notes!
2005-10-09 07:10 pm (UTC)
Please record your presentation; that will be valuable. Thanks!
MP3 of this "talk"? Would like to hear it...
Re "Open Source Definition", remember that not all open source follows the OSF definitions. The first open source I was involved with was anti-spam software and it used a basically BSD plus can't resell by spamming license. Not OSF definition (restricts a field of endaevor - spamming) but certainly open source. The license was used successfully to get the software removed from the server of at least one person who was using spam to sell anti-spam software.
2005-10-09 08:11 pm (UTC)
I can bring that up as an anecdote, but I have to side with the OSF here. I wouldn't call it open source if it restricts the ability to spam. Introduces too much gray area (What is spamming? opt-in vs opt-out vs business partners permit us to do this, etc, etc) for too little gain: spammers are unethical and will just steal your software anyway, open or not, so why unnecessarily restrict it when you could just use BSD and be actually open source.