[CAVO] FW: Discussing proposed new licenses

Tue Sep 15 15:00:57 UTC 2015

From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 5:33 AM
To: Brian J. Fox <bfox at opuslogica.com>
Cc: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>; Lawrence Rosen
<lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Discussing proposed new licenses

Hi Brian,

I didn't get that email.  I checked my deleted items folder and didn't see
it there either so I didn't accidentally delete it either.  Unfortunately I
cleared junk a bit ago but since I'm getting this email I don't think it
would end up there.

I'm on a field test at the moment so have limited email.  I may not be able
to reply very quickly this week.

But the short version is that GPL prohibits the ability for companies to
create and sell enhancements even in non-core areas IF you accept the FSF
definition of derivative work.  Any analytic modules, UI enhancements,
support tools, etc that would create a marketable differentiation has to be
GPL'd if linked.  Legacy companies simply have little financial incentive to
join in your effort.  Small companies that would write proprietary plug ins
also have little financial reason to be interested.

Using a MPL based core is more business friendly.

GPL is an excellent potential first mover advantage in a contested
commercial domain.  The company that owns the code base and has a solid CLA
can still create proprietary versions for customers with their own closed
code.  Peer competitors can not.  For example MySQL AB could sell commercial
licenses and enhancements to MySQL DB.  Others could not and would resist
allowing this code base to dominate.  This might be the smart play among the
big 3 but they won't give up control over the code base to anyone else.
Release a minimal GPL core and keep the competitive advantage as closed
source code.  

Regards,

Nigel

--

Nigel Tzeng

Space Exploration Sector

Ground Applications Group

11100 Johns Hopkins Road

Laurel, MD 20723

443-778-1464

From: "Brian J. Fox" <bfox at opuslogica.com <mailto:bfox at opuslogica.com> >
Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:33 AM
To: "Nigel H. Tzeng" <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu <mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
>
Cc: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com <mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com> >,
Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Discussing proposed new licenses

Nigel, are you specifically ignoring my emails, or are they not reaching
you? 

On Sep 11, 2015, at 8:18 AM, Brian J. Fox <bfox at opuslogica.com
<mailto:bfox at opuslogica.com> > wrote:

Hello Nigel - 

On Sep 10, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
<mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> > wrote:

the vanilla open source license would face resistance from some segment of
stakeholders.

Please clarify exactly what the resistance would be, and from exactly which
segment?

Also, do you really mean "would face", or do you mean "has faced?"

If there is something fundamentally wrong with the GPLv3, I would like to
both know that, and to fix it.  If, however, there is only a
misunderstanding, some fear, uncertainty, and doubt surround the magic
letters of GPL, I would really appreciate knowing that as well.

Perhaps the GPLv3 is actually totally fine, and should simply be named the
Open Election Software License V1 instead.

Thanks,

Brian
--
Brian J. Fox
Founder/CEO
Opus Logica, Inc.
A: 901 Olive St., 93101
O: 76-BAFFLE-76
C: 805.637.8642

Thanks,

Brian
--
Brian J. Fox
Founder/CEO
Opus Logica, Inc.
A: 901 Olive St., 93101
O: 76-BAFFLE-76
C: 805.637.8642

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150915/641cbdd1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 16942 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150915/641cbdd1/attachment.png>