[License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Wed Jun 14 19:41:31 UTC 2017

Joe Kiniry wrote:

> In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software without contributing back to the community.

Hi Joe, welcome to this list. :-)

Let's talk license fear factors. One of them is the mistaken impression that any open source license can ever prevent competitors from selling your software. But if you also insist that they contribute back to the community, then don't be afraid of the GPL; that is the principle of that license regardless of the licensees' fear. That is one major reason for Brent Turner and others to recommend the GPL for election software.

By the way, nowadays I personally prefer either the Apache License (rather than the BSD) or the reciprocal MPL 2.0 (rather than the GPL). But it would be foolish for a licensor to offer both Apache and MPL as a dual license. Take the Apache License rather than the MPL if the foolish licensor offers that dual license choice. It is always better for a licensee.

/Larry

From: Joe Kiniry [mailto:kiniry at freeandfair.us] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:13 PM
To: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>; license-discuss at opensource.org; Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

Thank you for including me in these discussions.  I'm now subscribed to license-discuss.

In short, the reason we have made our software available in the fashion that we have is exactly because of the fear factor surrounding GPL and, secondarily, we do not want competitors to sell our software without contributing back to the community.

We have yet to interact with a single elections official who understands and is comfortable with GPL, let alone demands GPL.  The most common licenses mentioned by EOs is BSD and Apache.  Zero election officials have expressed an interest in the OSET public license to date.

As with all R&D we do at Free & Fair and Galois, we listen to our customers and do what they ask.  Thus, we release most everything we do under BSD, unless we are forced towards another OSI license due to build dependencies etc.

Joe

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:58 AM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org <mailto:cowan at ccil.org> > wrote:

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> > wrote:

> So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and

> GPL dual licensing?

The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't.  "Damnunt quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not understand.

-- 

John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan at ccil.org <mailto:cowan at ccil.org> 

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion

that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive

activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,

but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be

taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170614/36e1662d/attachment.html>