[CAVO] [License-review] OSET Foundation

Wed Sep 9 20:31:08 UTC 2015

There is no desire for "weak copyleft" in this context. CAVO specifically
wants the strongest copyleft we can get for election software. I believe
that's GPLv3.

Nigel, please don't put me in the false position of claiming that GPLv3 is
good for everything. You know it has never been my favorite license. :-)
But in this case, considering the essential element of public trust in
public election software, I want the (psychologically) strongest license in
our arsenal. I DO want the public to be comforted by attorneys at the ready
to defend software freedom for this GPL application. That will be reassuring
around the world.

I'm not proposing a litmus test for approving (yet another) license. This is
a plea for us not to use such a license for the core parts of this specific
elections application stack. Use GPLv3.

/Larry

From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 1:14 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; 'License submissions for OSI
review' <license-review at opensource.org>; 'Gregory Miller'
<gmiller at osetfoundation.org>
Cc: 'Christine Santoro' <csantoro at osetfoundation.org>; 'CAVO'
<cavo at opensource.org>; 'Meegan Gregg' <meegan at osetfoundation.org>;
legal at osetfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation

When did justification for not using GPL suddenly become a litmus test for
new license approval?  I didn't get the memo about there being OSD #11
License submitter must provide justification for not using GPLV3 because
they are involved in software for specific endeavors Larry thinks is
important.

They want a weak copyleft.  GPLV3 isn't one.  What further justification do
you need for not using GPLv3?  They don't need to provide a point by point
refutation of your memo.  At most it's "tell us why vanilla MPL isn't
satisfactory".

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at opensource.org
<mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org> > on behalf of Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Reply-To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
>, OSI License Review <license-review at opensource.org
<mailto:license-review at opensource.org> >
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:03 PM
To: 'Gregory Miller' <gmiller at osetfoundation.org
<mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org> >
Cc: OSI License Review <license-review at opensource.org
<mailto:license-review at opensource.org> >, 'Christine Santoro'
<csantoro at osetfoundation.org <mailto:csantoro at osetfoundation.org> >, 'CAVO'
<cavo at opensource.org <mailto:cavo at opensource.org> >, 'Meegan Gregg'
<meegan at osetfoundation.org <mailto:meegan at osetfoundation.org> >,
"legal at osetfoundation.org <mailto:legal at osetfoundation.org> "
<legal at osetfoundation.org <mailto:legal at osetfoundation.org> >
Subject: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation

Hi Greg,

Valid concerns have been raised here and on license-review@ about OSET's
attempt to insert a new license into the existing collection for (what we
call) invalid reasons. It does not help to have you point repeatedly to your
Rationale document and yet refuse to comment specifically on CAVO's.

What don't you like about GPLv3 for election software?  Please answer
specifically.

I can assure you that government agencies acquire and use GPL software every
day!

I'm adding license-review@ back to this thread so we can all hear your
response. If participants here believe that license-discuss@ is a more
appropriate venue for this thread, someone please move it there and cut back
the other cc's. Thanks.

/Larry

From: Gregory Miller [mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Cc: Christine Santoro <csantoro at osetfoundation.org
<mailto:csantoro at osetfoundation.org> >; Meeker, Heather J. <hmeeker at omm.com
<mailto:hmeeker at omm.com> >; Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org
<mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org> >; CAVO <cavo at opensource.org
<mailto:cavo at opensource.org> >; Meegan Gregg <meegan at osetfoundation.org
<mailto:meegan at osetfoundation.org> >; legal at osetfoundation.org
<mailto:legal at osetfoundation.org> 
Subject: Re: OSET Foundation

Good Morning Larry-

Running into a busy balance of the day here, but with regard to your
question, our position is best laid out in our Rationale document, and our
recently updated FAQ, both available at
www.osetfoundation.org/public-license
<http://www.osetfoundation.org/public-license> .

Thanks very much and have a great day.

Best

Gregory

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com
<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> > wrote in relevant part:

....- please respond directly to my own rationale memo explaining why GPLv3
is the most appropriate license for elections software. Do you disagree and
why? 

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2014-November/001580.
html

Gregory Miller
Co-Executive Director & Chief Development Officer
OSET Foundation | TrustTheVote Project
 <http://www.osetfoundation.org/> www.OSETFoundation.org |
<http://www.trustthevote.org/> www.trustthevote.org
Twitter: @TrustTheVote | @OSET

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150909/b157c209/attachment.html>