<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Brent,</div><div><br></div><div>Well that is a generalist philosophical statement - however given the focus on Voting Software - and that domain - which does have a whole raft of prescriptive needs - one can produce a set of criteria with which to evaluate licenses by, and determine if that license is fit for purpose for election and voting software.<br></div><div><br></div><div>And that is why we have concluded that GPL3 is a minimal required license to pass muster and establish trust - because there are two parties here - the public - and the supplier. <br></div><div><br></div><div>David<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;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [CAVO] Note from OSI-<br>
From: Brent Turner <<a href="mailto:turnerbrentm@gmail.com">turnerbrentm@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Mon, January 04, 2016 3:12 pm<br>
To: CAVO <<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org">CAVO@opensource.org</a>><br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Though OSI is doing good work-- they are a tad shy about entering this national security fracas surrounding election system software licenses-- <div><br></div><div>We did, however, receive this from them recently-- and wanted to share- </div><div><br></div><div>Thoughts ? </div><div><br></div><div>BT <br><div><br></div><div><br><b style="font-size:12.8px"><br></b><div><b style="font-size:12.8px"><br></b></div><div><b style="font-size:12.8px">Which Open Source license is best?</b><br style="font-size:12.8px"><dl style="font-size:12.8px"><br>Unlike bilateral copyright licenses, which are negotiated between two parties and embody a truce between them for business purposes, multilateral copyright licenses — of which open source licenses are a kind — are “constitutions of communities”, as Eben Moglen and others have observed. They express the consensus of how a community chooses to collaborate. They also embody its ethical assumptions, even if they are not explicitly enumerated.<br><br>When that consensus includes giving permission to all to use, study improve and share the code without prejudice, the license is an open source license. The <a href="http://opensource.org/definition" target="_blank">Open Source Definition</a> provides an objective test of evaluating that such a license is indeed an open source license and delivers the software freedom we all expect.<br><br>Since licenses are the consensus of communities, it is natural that different communities will have different licenses, that communities with different norms will find fault with the licenses used by others, and that all will regard their way as optimum. The arguments over this will be as deep as the gulf between the philosophical positions of the communities involved.<br><br>Ultimately, there is no license that is right for every community. Use the one that best aligns with your community’s objectives and ethos.</dl></div></div></div></div> <hr>_______________________________________________<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>