[CAVO] FW: Note from OSI-

[Brent Turner]

The general concern is that "open washers "  ( i.e. those who have
previously demonstrated aggressive business practices without regard for
the OS community and fly the flag of OS without core values ) have entered
the space of election reform without having the public googd as their
paramount objective.

In other words via licensing scheme they would retain control points which
would allow a slippery slope toward counting manipulations.  As the game is
a big one.. the incentive for these types is obvious..  and now that we
have opened the door for OS in elections  it is our duty to inoculate
against " kinda - sorta " open source business attempts-

Best-  BT




On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Brent, what is the national security "fracas" that you are concerned about
> relating to open source or our licenses?  /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brent Turner [mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 4, 2016 12:12 PM
> *To:* CAVO <CAVO at opensource.org>
> *Subject:* [CAVO] Note from OSI-
>
>
>
> Though OSI is doing  good work--  they are a tad shy about entering this
> national security fracas surrounding election system software licenses--
>
>
>
> We did, however, receive this from them  recently-- and wanted to share-
>
>
>
> Thoughts ?
>
>
>
> BT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Which Open Source license is best?*
>
> Unlike bilateral copyright licenses, which are negotiated between two
> parties and embody a truce between them for business purposes, multilateral
> copyright licenses — of which open source licenses are a kind — are
> “constitutions of communities”, as Eben Moglen and others have observed.
> They express the consensus of how a community chooses to collaborate. They
> also embody its ethical assumptions, even if they are not explicitly
> enumerated.
>
> When that consensus includes giving permission to all to use, study
> improve and share the code without prejudice, the license is an open source
> license. The Open Source Definition <http://opensource.org/definition> provides
> an objective test of evaluating that such a license is indeed an open
> source license and delivers the software freedom we all expect.
>
> Since licenses are the consensus of communities, it is natural that
> different communities will have different licenses, that communities with
> different norms will find fault with the licenses used by others, and that
> all will regard their way as optimum. The arguments over this will be as
> deep as the gulf between the philosophical positions of the communities
> involved.
>
> Ultimately, there is no license that is right for every community. Use the
> one that best aligns with your community’s objectives and ethos.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160104/f76996ad/attachment.html>