[CAVO] Congressman Johnson bill for open source voting

[Brent Turner]

Thanks Patrick.. Yes-  You and Larry have calmed my concerns previous but
ny my nature they pop back up..

Mainly my suspicion of OSET / OSDV etc comes from their initial attempts at
gaining approval without proper form.. then the fact they " slid in" to
approval after much lawyering...  This does not give me comfort.. nor does
their declaration that their reason for creating a new license is due to a
" secret " list of government procurement people they have created who
prefer " OPL " to GPL ..  Needless to say their previous lack of outreach
.. and their proprietary backgrounds..  don't help calm me either..

Thanks again for your work and insight

BT



On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Patrick Masson <masson at opensource.org>
wrote:

> Brent,
>
> I appreciate the work of OSI..  but with the obtainment of the OSI
>> approved license by OSET .. do you think that merely recommending an OSI
>> approved license- rather than GPL v3 - would be appropriate ?
>>
>
> Yes. All OSI approved licenses ensure software freedom, ability to use,
> modify and redistribute. I would please ask you to confer with others you
> trust, if not me nor the OSI, to get the assurances you need.
>
> My apprehension is that the government lacks the instinct to differentiate
>> between "open -washers " who have managed to technically comply with OSI
>> requisites for approval.. and the " real " open source community who would
>> be less likely to manipulate the government for financial gain .
>>
>
> All OSI approved licenses ensure the same freedoms and meet to the same
> requirements. I think you might be confusing licenses with business models.
> Indeed business models like Open Core, and licensing tactics like Dual
> Licenses *can* create vendor lock-in, but so could the AGPL.
>
> I recognize you mentioned a background check of persons involved  i.e.
>> track record..   but I don't know if government has good ability there-
>>
>
> Agreed, which is why any software distributed with an OSI license ensures
> continued access and freedom.
>
> I (and I expect the OSI) is most worried about organizations like Qabel,
> more than OSET, that have stated they produce open source software, use
> their own license--a license that does not ensure software freedom. Qabel
> develops encryption software (something an e-voting system might need), but
> includes provisions in the license against some government use.
>
> There must be a standard that governments can look to in order to trust
> that the software is not just marketed as open source--especially as the
> market grows when legislation like this passes. That list is the OSI
> Approved License list, and not to cite it opens a huge door for fraud,
> mistrust and ultimately the failure of all our efforts. Once the government
> gets burned by fauxpen source software, I suspect it will be very difficult
> to win them back.
>
> I hope others on this list will add their thoughts.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160628/d0719f67/attachment.html>