I am running for re-election to another term on the OSI Board of Directors. 

About me

I am a lawyer who has specialized in open source licensing and other open source and free culture-related legal issues for over 11 years. But I have been a user and advocate of open source for far longer than that, having discovered Linux about a year before the OSI was foudned  a discovery that profoundly transformed my life, personally as well as professionally. 

I have served as a legal counselor to open source projects, open source and free software nonprofits, and companies involved in using, developing and distributing open source software. For most of my career in open source law I have worked at Red Hat as its lead open source legal counsel. Before working at Red Hat I was counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center, where my main client was the FSF and where I primarily worked on the drafting of the GPLv3 license family. In between past and current stints at Red Hat I served as Senior Director and Associate General Counsel at HP, responsible for open source strategy and compliance. Through my work I have sought to make a significant impact on several areas of open source legal policy.

I have served on the OSI Board since August 2013. Over the past couple of years I have acted as License Committee chair, which fits well with my interests and expertise. Earlier I served as the Affiliates Committee chair.

Several people have described me as ‘passionate about open source’. I would put it more specifically: I am passionate about protecting and nurturing open source as an innovative legal and social model for developing software. 

Goals for OSI board

I have a few specific goals I would like to help the OSI board achieve:

• Continued stewardship of the Open Source Definition: The core role of the OSI continues to be that of authoritative maintainer, guardian and interpreter of the OSD, through its consideration of licenses submitted for approval. This is our primary means of combating “open-washing”, the threat of dilution of the meaning of open source, which remains as big a problem as ever. But we can’t approach this task too conservatively; we must make sure that the OSD stays up to date and relevant. It is also important that we approach this work free of political or ideological bias (for example, towards one category of licensing model).
• Promote norms of open source development: Open source has come to mean a set of best legal and social practices around software development that are not limited to details of outbound licensing. The OSI should expand its role in defining and promoting such practices. The “Beyond Licensing” initiative is a good step.  
• Education and advocacy: Ironically, as open source becomes more ubiquitous, understanding of the legal foundations of open source is not as pervasive as it should be. The OSI is well situated to play a role in addressing this problem; for example during my time with OSI I have given presentations to user groups and university students on open source licensing. There is a related need to advocate for adoption of open source and open source development methodologies, which is also a mission that is uniquely appropriate for the OSI. 
• Closer ties to other software freedom organizations: During my time with OSI I have been especially pleased to see points of contact and collaboration with peer organizations like Software Freedom Conservancy and FSF, which has helped heal a historic rift that followed formation of the OSI. This should continue. 
• Aiding other public interest movements: There is a still mostly unexplored potential for the open source community to aid the work of social justice, humanitarian and public interest activities that do not specifically concern software; OSI can lead the way here. An example of personal interest to me is the disability rights movement.

Feel free to ask me any questions here or on Twitter (@richardfontana). Thank you!