[License-discuss] FreeAndFair license

[Joe Kiniry]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20170614/b7fc0a7a/attachment.html>