<div dir="ltr">The general concern is that "open washers " ( i.e. those who have previously demonstrated aggressive business practices without regard for the OS community and fly the flag of OS without core values ) have entered the space of election reform without having the public googd as their paramount objective. <div><br></div><div>In other words via licensing scheme they would retain control points which would allow a slippery slope toward counting manipulations. As the game is a big one.. the incentive for these types is obvious.. and now that we have opened the door for OS in elections it is our duty to inoculate against " kinda - sorta " open source business attempts- </div><div><br></div><div>Best- BT </div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Lawrence Rosen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com" target="_blank">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Brent, what is the national security "fracas" that you are concerned about relating to open source or our licenses? /Larry<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Brent Turner [mailto:<a href="mailto:turnerbrentm@gmail.com" target="_blank">turnerbrentm@gmail.com</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, January 4, 2016 12:12 PM<br><b>To:</b> CAVO <<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org" target="_blank">CAVO@opensource.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> [CAVO] Note from OSI-<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">Though OSI is doing good work-- they are a tad shy about entering this national security fracas surrounding election system software licenses-- <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">We did, however, receive this from them recently-- and wanted to share- <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Thoughts ? <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">BT <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.5pt">Which Open Source license is best?</span></b><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><br><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.</span><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
CAVO mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org" target="_blank">CAVO@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>