<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Larry,</div><div><br></div><div>I concur - while folks may be sensitive to the corporate structure of OSET - I see this purely as a licensing technical issue.</div><div><br></div><div>Bottom line is - ask a lawyer and... they will try and solve the issues using legal constructs.</div><div><br></div><div>I do not think this is a legal issue with the license terms. It's a contracting issue with government, state and local contracts offices.</div><div><br></div><div>The wording needs to be fixed and aligned there, and not with the software licensing itself.</div><div><br></div><div>Doubly so in fact - because contract terms bind the parties. So if the contract calls for specific aspects, such as the use of GPL3 for delivered code, AND placing the delivered code in a public repository - the contracts department will ensure this happens BEFORE the provider gets paid.</div><div><br></div><div>Just having GPL3 or OSET as "preferred" criteria in an RFI or RFP are nice - but completely useless in making anything concrete occur. The PM of the contract and the contracts staff and the vendor can safely ignore all of these aspects as not explicitly deliverables.</div><div><br></div><div>There's an old phrase here that spells it out - "Barking up the wrong tree".</div><div><br></div><div>Of course OSET can be seen as trying to back door these things into the mix, given that its harder to solicit contracts folks and educate them about what should be called for in contracts technically. But I think the community IS CAPABLE of effecting that - spelling this out as part of FOSS criteria. So just like a contract may call for using Microsoft Windows 7+, or Oracle Database 10g, this is such technical criteria.<br></div><div><br></div><div>David<br></div><div><br><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;" mce_style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [CAVO] [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License<br>
for Approval<br>
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>><br>
Date: Sun, September 06, 2015 12:34 pm<br>
To: "'License submissions for OSI review'"<br>
<<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>>, "'CAVO'" <<a href="mailto:cavo@opensource.org">cavo@opensource.org</a>><br>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>><br>
<br>
Richard Fontana wrote:<br>
> all I'm seeing here so far is general concern about the OSET Foundation's<br>
> close connection to the wealthy Mr. Kapor<br>
<br>
Hi Richard, I don't think that's a "general concern." That was Brent Turner's email, not mine. I'm not complaining about Mitch Kapor's wealth; I'm merely envious of that and ignore it otherwise. :-) <br>
<br>
I'm concentrating instead on OSET's argument that government agencies need this license in order to properly acquire FOSS election software. If that's a valid fear, our community has some work to do to fix it -- and not necessarily introduce another license to gloss it over.<br>
<br>
I'm completely in favor of multiple FOSS-licensed components in an election system, just as David Webber described. (As you know, I advocated that general acceptance of FOSS at Apache over the objections of certain license zealots there.) If OSI approves the OSET Public License, then we should accept election system components under that license too. <br>
<br>
I have specifically advocated that the *core* election software be licensed under GPLv3. That way it will play as secure and important and trusted and open a role in our government as Linux already does. You already forwarded my email to this list on that suggestion. But that's up to authors of FOSS software, not me. <br>
<br>
/Larry<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Richard Fontana [<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org">mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>] <br>
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 7:36 AM<br>
To: License submissions for OSI review <<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>><br>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>>; CAVO <<a href="mailto:cavo@opensource.org">cavo@opensource.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [License-review] [CAVO] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval<br>
<br>
<br>
How would CAVO, or the open source voting systems space generally, be harmed if this license were approved? (How is it any different than if the OSET Foundation decided to use an existing non-GPLv3 OSI-approved license, such as MPL 2.0 ... or even "GPLv2 only"?)<br>
<br>
I think the politics lurking behind these license submissions are worth bringing to light and examining (something which hasn't been done enough in the past, IMO) but all I'm seeing here so far is general concern about the OSET Foundation's close connection to the wealthy Mr. Kapor.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 07:50:14PM -0700, Brent Turner wrote:<br>
> Maybe there are answers in the sidebar- - What compels someone like <br>
> Mitch Kapor to create a new license for election systems ? What <br>
> compels him to be in the space of "open source " voting systems to <br>
> begin with ? Certainly we assume he has more than enough money but <br>
> is it just greed for more ? Is it the power that comes with <br>
> pioneering a new license so that he can be the " kingpin " of voting ? <br>
> This is the concern of the open source voting pioneer community. OSET <br>
> has consistently ignored. the open source community and now this new license issue is upon us. Why would we need a new license rather than use GPLv3 ? .<br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>> wrote:<br>
[<LER>] <snip> <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CAVO mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org">CAVO@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>