I'm the Chief Strategist for Red Hat's US Public Sector group, where I work with systems integrators and government agencies to encourage the use of open source software in government. I'm a founder of Open Source for America, one of Federal Computer Week's Fed 100 for 2010, and I've been voted one of the FedScoop 50 for industry leadership. I'm a member of the Military Open Source working group, the SIIA Software Division Board, the Board of Directors for the Public Sector Innovation Group, the Open Technology Fund Advisory Council, and New America's California Civic Innovation Project Advisory Council. I perk up when people talk about cross-domain security, edge innovation, and interagency collaboration through the open source model. I'm also co-host of the Dave and Gunnar Show. Prior to joining Red Hat, I worked as a developer, systems administrator, and IT director for a series of internet businesses. I've also been a business and IT consultant to not-for-profit organizations in New York City. During that time, I spearheaded the reform of safety regulations for New York State's electrical utilities following the tragic death of Jodie Lane.When I'm not spreading the Good News about open source, I'm wishing I had a dogenjoying time with my dog and my wife.
Authored Comments
I think of CC as compelling not because of the "brand" or the command-and-control necessarily, but because it's very easy for the recipient of the license to understand what they are and are not allowed to do – as Richard mentioned. It's focused on the end-user. There may be confusion at the margins, but the terms of a CC license are generally more easily grasped that your average OSI-approved license.
The ease with which I can express my intentions as a property owner under CC is something that would be very valuable in the software world. I don't think this necessarily requires a top-down regime. I know this idea has been flirted with before, but I think it would be immensely helpful to have a consensus set of signifiers, oriented to the end-user, for specific, recurring software licensing terms.
Interesting to see two camps: one which is focused on engagement, responsiveness, etc. Another which is concerned with transparency and releasing data. They overlap, of course. I think we saw a lot more of the transparency advocates about four years ago, where now it seems the conversation is led by the collaboration and engagement folks.
Am I imagining things? Is this because collaboration is easier to measure, or the results more tangible?