[CAVO] [License-review] OSET Foundation

Wed Sep 9 23:15:03 UTC 2015

Nigel Tzeng wrote:

> And obviously the problem with using GPLv3 for the "core parts of election
application stack" is that the non-core parts will have to be GPLv3 as well.

That is not true. I've written that publicly myself hundreds of times and by
now you should understand it about FOSS licensing. See OSD #1. Look at the
entire Linux ecosystem. And read GPLv3. 

You are the one who is using the invented terms "strong copyleft" and "weak
copyleft". We can't avoid them, but these terms are ambiguous. What I asked
for in my email is a "strong license" and not a "strong copyleft," and GPLv3
is that.

Why did you accuse me of "mailing list judo"? Please do not stop CAVO and
others from asking for proof of Rationale claims that are asserted for new
FOSS license submissions.

/Larry

From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 3:51 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

Larry,

Obviously the folks that desire a weak copyleft is the OSET folks.  It is
written in their Rationale document.  Assuming that they represent their
constituency then those folks also want a weak copyleft.  Or at least is
willing to live with one vs either a strong copyleft or permissive license.

As far as putting you in a false position you declare that "Among the many
FOSS licenses, GPLv3 is the most modern, widely accepted, and best
understood license available today."

That's hardly the way I would describe a license that wasn't high on my list
of favorite licenses. 

And obviously the problem with using GPLv3 for the "core parts of election
application stack" is that the non-core parts will have to be GPLv3 as well.
You may want that but vendors probably don't which is part of their
constituency.

Whether strong or weak copyleft is more appropriate for election software is
out of scope for license-review.  If you really think CAVO has the better
approach with GPLv3 then CAVO can just build a better open stack community.
Compete with your superior repo, not your superior mailing list judo.  Even
if you manage to torpedo their license submission you still can't force them
to use GPLv3.

Nigel

From: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Reply-To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 4:31 PM
To: "Nigel H. Tzeng" <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu <mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>, OSI License Review <license-review at opensource.org
<mailto:license-review at opensource.org> >, 'Gregory Miller'
<gmiller at osetfoundation.org <mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org> >
Cc: '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> >, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com
<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Subject: RE: [License-review] OSET Foundation

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 <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >;
'License submissions for OSI review' <license-review at opensource.org
<mailto:license-review at opensource.org> >; 'Gregory Miller'
<gmiller at osetfoundation.org <mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org> >
Cc: '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> 
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/cf25fc4e/attachment.html>