In the first half of my talk, I try to widen the scope of what people think of "open source" by discussing the The Open Source Definition why the OSI has created. What's interesting about the OSI's definition is how politico-philosophical it is, and how little a part "source code visibility" plays in the definition.
The only part of the OSI's definition I disagree with is #6: "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
The reason I disagree with it is that a long history of "free for non-commercial use, and a reasonable, non-exploitative commercial use fee" exists in the open source community. Magnatune, of course, uses this concept, but so does MySQL, and a dozen other high profile open source projects. Simply put, the commercial use restriction is a way to fund an open source project, effectively underwriting the non-commercial use with commercial use fees.
More importantly, other than charging for modifications, packaging or tech support, I know of no proven business models for a software company to go open source, and actually survive. And, the non-commercial-restriction-as-business-model concept is the most proven and repeatable of the profitable open source business models.
Looking back at this video, I see that I have a lot of energy and excitement during this first half, discussing the open source definition. The 2nd half, where I talk about Magnatune, is less energetic, and to me, less successful. However, after the talk, many people came up to me to tell me how inspirational it was--namely the idea of applying the open source ethos and the lessons learned to another field.
From a public speaking perspective, I'm happy with the first half -- lots of vocal variety, some humor, energy. The 2nd half is drier and my voice is more monotonous. I think I was getting tired (grin).
I used to be a seriously introverted geek, who had trouble talking to 3 people at once. Two years going to a volunteer public speaking group called Toastmasters cured me of that, and gave me what I consider a passable public speaking skill. I really recommend Toastmasters -- there are clubs worldwide, in every language, and the cost is very low (since it's a volunteer organization).