<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:100%">Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO</div></div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Richard Fontana <fontana@sharpeleven.org> <br>Date:09/17/2015 8:59 AM (GMT-08:00) <br>To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review@opensource.org> <br>Subject: Re: [License-review] [Was: Submission of OSET Public License for
Approval] -- National Security and Public Policy (3.5B and 4) <br><br>On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:42:01AM -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:<br>> On 09/16/2015 08:11 PM, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:<br>> > Understood, and by implication I gather you would also not contribute to any project under a permissive license.<br>> > <br>> <br>> Nope, because I already do (which you'd realize if you googled me). The<br>> issue is one of asymmetry.<br>> <br>> If I contribute to OSET under the OSET license, and I have to obey the<br>> terms of the OSET license if I want to use the OSET software in my own<br>> business. But governments, and favored contractors with complaint<br>> legislators, or even just corrupt beaurocrats, get to use my<br>> contribution *without* the restrictions which I must obey. So the OSET<br>> license creates a 2-class system, in which people with access to the<br>> levers of government have more rights than code contributors do.<br>> <br>> Personally I think corrupt legislators and beaurocrats have enough power<br>> already. We don't need to give them more in the terms of a license.<br>> <br>> This is materially identical to dual-licensing, where companies offer<br>> code under the GPL, but also commercially license it. I don't<br>> contribute to those projects either (and neither does anyone else,<br>> historically). Imagine if someone asked us to certify a license which<br>> said "corporations can ignore any provision of this license which<br>> conflicts with company policy". This would not be an OSS license.<br><br>Actually, I think such a license could be demonstrably OSD-conformant<br>(or, to make this easier, conformant to the similar-in-spirit Free<br>Software Definition of the FSF). But it is inconceivable that the OSI<br>would approve such a license, and it might, and maybe does, expose<br>some inadequacy in the Open Source Definition or some overly-literal<br>interpretations of it.<br><br>> Due to this provision, I see the OSET license as presented as being in<br>> violation of the OSD, and would not currently vote to certify it.<br><br>I'm not sure whether I agree yet but I think you've raised a very<br>important concern.<br><br>Richard<br>_______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br>License-review@opensource.org<br>https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review<br></body>