[CAVO] FW: Note from OSI-

[Brent Turner]

Larry-

By aggressive I mean those  creating a board of Random Search Optimizers
and purporting to be the pioneers without actually doing the heavy
lifting...  That in conjunction with fighting for disclosed code rather
than open source..  then introducing un-necessary licenses into the space..
 something just doesn't pass the smell test--  I think there is something
rotten.  as a matter of I'm sure of it.

I'm still waiting for the McCarthy-esque list of the government employees
insisting on OPL over GPL--

We shall see-- and thanks for your sympathy



On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Brent, I do not agree with you on that. What you describe as "aggressive
> business practices" doesn't apply yet – because there is no actual *open
> source* election software being marketed by aggressive businesses. Maybe
> someday, but not yet. Currently it is still largely a software fantasy.
>
>
>
> You describe "open washers" and "scheme" and "control points" and a
> "slippery slope." Please use facts and not buzz words to describe your
> concerns. If there are valid concerns for election security, I can assure
> you that many of us will stand up to fight.
>
>
>
> As for the "flag of OS" and its "core values," I encourage you to trust
> the OSI board members and many of its community activists to wave their
> brave pennant and to cherish their core values. Meanwhile, CAVO should
> focus on *open source software*.
>
>
>
> You appear to be disappointed in this relationship with OSI and what are
> the beginnings of an "open source community" here. I'm sorry if the OSI
> board isn't adopting the same politically active measures that you want to
> take, but they have never stopped you from mounting a platform. Just don't
> expect them to join you there.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> P.S. I have mounted several platforms myself that the OSI board has
> refused to join.  My sympathies to you, just as some have sympathized with
> me for my futile FOSS licensing battles here. Yet FOSS thrives....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brent Turner [mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 4, 2016 12:55 PM
> *To:* Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; CAVO <cavo at opensource.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [CAVO] FW: Note from OSI-
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160104/8cd75cd2/attachment.html>