[CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] [Was: Submission of OSET Public License for Approval] -- National Security and Public Policy (3.5B and 4)

[Lawrence Rosen]

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO

-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org> 
Date:09/17/2015  8:59 AM  (GMT-08:00) 
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org> 
Subject: Re: [License-review] [Was: Submission of OSET Public License for
  Approval] -- National Security and Public Policy (3.5B and 4) 

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:42:01AM -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 09/16/2015 08:11 PM, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:
> > Understood, and by implication I gather you would also not contribute to any project under a permissive license.
> > 
> 
> Nope, because I already do (which you'd realize if you googled me).  The
> issue is one of asymmetry.
> 
> If I contribute to OSET under the OSET license, and I have to obey the
> terms of the OSET license if I want to use the OSET software in my own
> business.  But governments, and favored contractors with complaint
> legislators, or even just corrupt beaurocrats, get to use my
> contribution *without* the restrictions which I must obey.  So the OSET
> license creates a 2-class system, in which people with access to the
> levers of government have more rights than code contributors do.
> 
> Personally I think corrupt legislators and beaurocrats have enough power
> already.  We don't need to give them more in the terms of a license.
> 
> This is materially identical to dual-licensing, where companies offer
> code under the GPL, but also commercially license it.  I don't
> contribute to those projects either (and neither does anyone else,
> historically).  Imagine if someone asked us to certify a license which
> said "corporations can ignore any provision of this license which
> conflicts with company policy".  This would not be an OSS license.

Actually, I think such a license could be demonstrably OSD-conformant
(or, to make this easier, conformant to the similar-in-spirit Free
Software Definition of the FSF). But it is inconceivable that the OSI
would approve such a license, and it might, and maybe does, expose
some inadequacy in the Open Source Definition or some overly-literal
interpretations of it.

> Due to this provision, I see the OSET license as presented as being in
> violation of the OSD, and would not currently vote to certify it.

I'm not sure whether I agree yet but I think you've raised a very
important concern.

Richard
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150917/4ecf5db7/attachment.html>