[CAVO] Fwd: "least restrictive" is polar opposite of GPL

[Brent Turner]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: "least restrictive" is polar opposite of GPL
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david at drrw.info>
Cc: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>, Tim Mayer <timbmayer at gmail.com>


David, two things you say are good are mutually exclusive:

This one:

"3) Modifications and improvements must be contributed back to the public
repository"

and that one
"a) Least restrictive license is a good thing - we want maximum access to
the source code "

Less (or least) restrictive licenses do not require modifications and
improvements be contributed back to the public repository.

GPL is a good match for voting software, imo.

AD


On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:50 PM, David RR Webber (XML) <david at drrw.info>
wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Yes - this one is slippery - and a paradox - so we need to frame set.  And
> basically we need to say - it is not enough to just state you want the
> least restrictive license - there are more factors in play here.
>
> a) Least restrictive license is a good thing - we want maximum access to
> the source code - but there is a caveat
> b) Removing all restrictions can result in the reverse, where the code is
> hijacked, forked and then closed down
> c) We need open public record formats that are transparent within the EMS
>
> So we need to state that there are four things needed
>
> 1) Open public license for the source code (least restrictive is OK)
> 2) Latest current and complete source code is published to public open
> repository (GitHub, SourceForge, et al)
> 3) Modifications and improvements must be contributed back to the public
> repository
> 4) Voting record formats used must be in a public open specification and
> the mapping used published
>
> Using GPL3 ensures that the 1 thru 3 should happen.
>
> Apache license only secures 1) while 2) and 3) are not prescribed.  We see
> that those not using GPL3 are punting on 2 thru 4 to varying degrees,
> flying under false flags to mislead the uninformed.
>
> In future we need to have people stating these 4 items when they publish
> RFIs, et al.  We have seen first hand what happens if this is not stated -
> people take over a project - take the open source - and immediately imprint
> themselves and avoid doing 2) 3) and 4).
>
> Hope that helps clarify all this.
>
> David
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: "least restrictive" is polar opposite of GPL
> From: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, August 09, 2015 4:26 pm
> To: Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com>, David Webber <david at drrw.info>
> Cc: Tim Mayer <timbmayer at gmail.com>
>
> David-   Please give Alan your thoughts regarding the flip side of this
> license issue coin
>
> I know we all agree on GPL v 3 but I'm sure Alan will appreciate your
> perspective
>
> Best-  BT
>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> see
>>
>> ​
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150809/53266fa0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Selection_268.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43777 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150809/53266fa0/attachment.png>