[License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

[Joe Kiniry]

Hi Larry,

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
wrote:

> 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. :-)
>

Thanks.

As a short preface to my involvement here, my brief bio relevant to this
topic is probably worthwhile.  I've been releasing software as open source
and running or contributing to open source projects since the late 1980s.
I have given public talks on OSS, software patents, and much more in my
many years of being an academic and an entrepreneur.  Thus, I have deep
knowledge of these topics.


> 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.
>
>
I do not have this mistaken impression.  Certainly it is the case that many
of our customers have such a mistaken impression, as well as many others,
about OSS.  I'm not afraid of GPL: my customers are.

If all of the customers I care about say "Yay! GPL!" then we'll be using
GPL.  At the moment, we are very far from this situation.

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.
>

I agree.  We don't do that.

All things being equal, I do wish that this were very simple and we could
provide our software under a single OSI-approved license.  But because of
the business landscape—particularly with regards to the naiveté of our
customers and the ethics of our competitors—we cannot do that quite yet.

Joe


>
>
> /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> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170614/c2aa835f/attachment.html>