[CAVO] Definition of "open source software"

Mon Jan 15 22:51:02 UTC 2018

Brian Fox wrote:
> I do not believe I am misinterpreting.  I’m reading the blurb that you posted.  It says that the "licensee is free to…"  it doesn’t say that the licensee is *required* to grant those freedoms to others after making modifications. This is the fundamental difference between GPLs and other licenses.

That distinction is accurate.

But the California Constitution shouldn't declare that the open source license MUST be copyleft. Licensor's choice! If the licensor prefers Apache to GPL, she is the licensor. Licensee takes under THOSE licensor's terms, not necessarily what open source license YOU wish for!

CAVO's choice is GPLv3. For that license, "licensee is free to...." And per the GPLv3 license itself, "licensee is (also) required to...." That applies to OUR licensed GPLv3 software. It is enforceable.

Use GPLv3 for CAVO-developed software! We have long-since recommended that license for our community primarily (but not only) because of copyleft. No change is implied.

/Larry

From: Brian J. Fox [mailto:bfox at opuslogica.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 2:26 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
Cc: CAVO <cavo at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Definition of "open source software"

I do not believe I am misinterpreting.  I’m reading the blurb that you posted.  It says that the "licensee is free to…"  it doesn’t say that the licensee is *required* to grant those freedoms to others after making modifications.

This is the fundamental difference between GPLs and other licenses.

On Jan 15, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

Please don't misinterpret. Some open source licenses are copyleft, others aren't. In both cases, however, the "complete source code" to the open source software must be provided. /Larry

From: Brian J. Fox [mailto:bfox at opuslogica.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 10:41 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >; CAVO <cavo at lists.opensource.org <mailto:cavo at lists.opensource.org> >
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Definition of "open source software"

"or other consideration" means that they don’t have to make their changes to the software open source as well.  That’s a fail in my book.

On Jan 13, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

Colleagues:

The following definition is being proposed for the California Constitution in a voter initiative to fund the development of open source election software in this state:

“Open source software” means software actually distributed to the public under software licenses that provide that every licensee is free to make copies of the software or derivative works thereof, to distribute them without payment of royalties or other consideration, and to access and use the complete source code of the software.

Comments?

/Larry

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw ( <http://www.rosenlaw.com/> www.rosenlaw.com) 

3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482

Cell: 707-478-8932 

This email is licensed under  <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.  <image001.png>

_______________________________________________
CAVO mailing list
 <mailto:CAVO at lists.opensource.org> CAVO at lists.opensource.org
 <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/cavo_lists.opensource.org> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/cavo_lists.opensource.org

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/20180115/5b323a21/attachment-0001.html>