Luis,

Thanks so much for putting these questions to all the candidates. I think they provide a helpful baseline across the issues for the voters.

Questions 1 & 4: The most important thing OSI can do is reach developers and educate them about open source. This is plank one of my platform. In the work I do ensuring that Microsoft meets its inbound license obligations, I’ve come to believe that you must meet developers where they are. A lot of the work that GitHub has done (e.g., choosealicense.com) does a good job giving a crash course in licensing. Some additional work in partnership with GitHub or others (GitLab, Bitbucket, etc.) would go a long way towards educating the newer (more) online generation of developers. Another potential avenue is working with some of the educational affiliates (as was done this past year with Brandeis) to offer courses in open source.

Question 2: Hard to say what the current baseline is since I’ve never been an OSI board member. That said, in order to have the board step back from any charitable non-profit, revenue for paid staff is required. I’m always willing to put in elbow grease and hustle, but also am very open to exploring ways that OSI might expand the pie so the board can step back a bit. As noted in my platform, revenue might be grown through some thoughtful incubation projects like ClearlyDefined.

Questions 3 & 6: We need the OSI to be a place where all open source organizations to come together. I there should be a kinship between organizations trying to achieve the same ends in the public good. I’d be as comfortable with an “Ethical Software Initiative” being an OSI affiliate and participating in OSI events as I was when Software Freedom Conservancy joined as an affiliate member. Indeed, I hope the Free Software Foundation and Apache Software Foundation will see fit to join in the future. Ethics in technology is important, more so as technology enables more of our human lives and others exert control over that technology. Free and open source software allows us to control the machines in our own lives, instead of the other way around. 

As a charitable organization where other open source charitable organizations can come together, the OSI should absolutely be open to a conversations about ethics in open source communities and the open source development process. In a lot of ways, the ethical source movement has already achieved a primary goal: the ethical license conversation has put a spotlight on the ethical issues raised.

That said, to the extent this was a question about whether I think OSD should be amended to include “ethical” licenses, I don’t for two reasons. First, if taken on their face, the licenses I’ve seen amount to cross veto power distributed among thousands of developers. Distributed veto power without bright lines end in gridlock – we saw an example of this with the “anticommons” and patent trolls. Second, I believe freedom is the only way to advance freedom. Free speech means that you need to tolerate the right to hate speech and then speak out against it. Free and open source software is the same – to have real freedom and autonomy in your technical life you need to refrain from exerting control over others'.

Question 5: As you might relate, as a lawyer I often wear an educator hat. I love open source and the power and opportunities that gives to all people on the planet. Outreachy is a great example of using open source to generate opportunities. I hope that on the OSI board I can have a huge impact by educating people about open source software and its opportunities – helping more people to build, learn from, and use open source to improve their lives. Isn't that why we're all here?

Thanks for taking the time to read my platform Anon. Agree that the "Ethical Source Definition" is at odds with both the Free Software and Open Source Software definition, and the hypothetical "Ethical Software Initiative" from Luis' question - if it follows the Ethical Source Definition - would not be open source organization. As I point out in my answer, I do not think the OSD should be amended to include "Ethical" licenses.

That said, such an organization would likely have some overlapping goals as open source and free software: using software to help society. Even if the tactics used are incompatible with free & open source software, and even if I disagree with the impact those tactics will have, I think if we've learned anything from the "open source" vs. "free software" days its that we gain nothing from refusing to have a conversation.