<div dir="ltr">I think it's more powerful if you make statement directly - <a href="mailto:jason.fried@sfgov.org">jason.fried@sfgov.org</a> <div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Patrick Masson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:masson@opensource.org" target="_blank">masson@opensource.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
Well below are my two suggestions. Not sure other than these if I can provide much help related to voting systems. Will you carry these forward, or should the OSI contact the authors directly?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Patrick<br>
<br>
On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 07:47 -0700, Brent Turner wrote:
<blockquote type="CITE">
Yes- Comments for revision are encouraged. I hope yourself, Larry and others will make time to set all matters straight so that there is clarity Comment period ends June 19th so the sooner the better ..
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Patrick Masson <<a href="mailto:masson@opensource.org" target="_blank">masson@opensource.org</a>> wrote:
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<blockquote>
Brent,<br>
<br>
I was looking over the document you referenced and had a few questions/concerns.<br>
<br>
Page one provides definitions including, "Open source: A term signifying the source code would be publicly available." This is an incomplete definition. It would be better to simply state, "Open source software; A term used to describe software caring and OSI Approved Open Source License." This definition would ensure that all of the attributes of the Open Source Definition, not just access to the code, are included in the definition. <br>
<br>
Page eight states, "Open source software is classified as a GPL; hence all improved versions of the original software must remain free, disallowing proprietary companies to adopt the software, make changes, and sell it on their own terms." This is not accurate. Open source software is software distributed with an OSI Approved Open Source License, and includes permissive licenses. Narrowly defining open source as only software caring a GPL or copyleft license does not reflect the open source software movement.<br>
<br>
Is there an opportunity to provide feedback? If so would you/CAVO be able to introduce these? The OSI is constantly challenged with the misuse of the term open source software and we strive to ensure that only software caring an OSI approved license uses the label. We see a lot of open washing and fauxpen source out there. While this is obviously not the case here, and it's clear folks are genuinely interested in working with authentic open source projects, it would be best to ensure constancy to avoid misunderstandings.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Patrick <br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 16:58 -0700, Brent Turner wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="CITE">
<a href="http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=52577" target="_blank">http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=52577</a><br>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CAVO mailing list
<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org" target="_blank">CAVO@opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<br>
<br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>