[CAVO] FW: [License-review] OSET Foundation

Thu Sep 10 03:43:42 UTC 2015

This is disappointing.  If OSET is truly interested in helping the country
secure the vote counting systems they should not be taking this position.
Their inability to tender proper explanation for their position is
disturbing at best.

Perhaps upon further consideration their tune will change.  I have seen no
indicator of that-- so I guess we sign off now.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> As I said, the rest is up to you. /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Meeker, Heather J. [mailto:hmeeker at omm.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2015 7:00 PM
> *To:* License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> *Cc:* 'Meegan Gregg' <meegan at osetfoundation.org>; legal at osetfoundation.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation
>
>
>
> Nigel, thanks for putting this so succinctly.  That’s exactly right.  The
> long running- dispute between those who prefer GPL3 for all software, and
> those who prefer to choose other licenses, is a philosophical argument
> beyond the scope of this list.  The reality is that we live in a world of
> open source under many licenses, not GPL only.  Our constituency has
> expressed a preference for a weak copyleft license.  So GPL does not work,
> period. We will not be responding on this list to any more demands for us
> to choose GPL.
>
>
>
> You correctly observe that the better question is why existing licenses
> like MPL don’t work for us.  We submitted a detailed rationale document.
> We have received some good comments on our license, but almost no serious
> comments on our rationale document.  I have seen postings expressing the
> opinion that government procurement does not understand or does not really
> care about the conflicts we have identified in our rationale.   But that is
> not the same thing as saying our rationale is ill-reasoned.  Those who
> believe that government should change its procurement regulations to be
> more friendly to open source have a civic right and duty to engage in the
> political process to make that happen.  But at this time, we think it is
> more productive to address the conflict with our license than to deny the
> conflicts exist.
>
>
>
> *From:* Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
> <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> on behalf
> of Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> *Reply-To: *Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>, OSI License Review <
> license-review at opensource.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:03 PM
> *To: *'Gregory Miller' <gmiller at osetfoundation.org>
> *Cc: *OSI License Review <license-review at opensource.org>, 'Christine
> Santoro' <csantoro at osetfoundation.org>, 'CAVO' <cavo at opensource.org>,
> 'Meegan Gregg' <meegan at osetfoundation.org>, "legal at osetfoundation.org" <
> 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
> <gmiller at osetfoundation.org>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2015 11:24 AM
> *To:* Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> *Cc:* Christine Santoro <csantoro at osetfoundation.org>; Meeker, Heather J.
> <hmeeker at omm.com>; Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>; CAVO <
> cavo at opensource.org>; Meegan Gregg <meegan at osetfoundation.org>;
> 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.
>
> 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>
> 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*
> www.OSETFoundation.org <http://www.osetfoundation.org/> |
> www.trustthevote.org
> *Twitter*: @TrustTheVote | @OSET
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150909/4b807a9f/attachment.html>