<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Joe Kiniry wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>> </span>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Hi Joe, welcome to this list. :-)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>By the way, nowadays I personally prefer <u>either</u> 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 <u>dual license</u>. Take the Apache License rather than the MPL if the foolish licensor offers that dual license choice. It is always better for a licensee.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b>From:</b> Joe Kiniry [mailto:kiniry@freeandfair.us] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 14, 2017 12:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org><br><b>Cc:</b> Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>; Brent Turner <turnerbrentm@gmail.com>; license-discuss@opensource.org; Alan Dechert <dechert@gmail.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] FreeAndFair license<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Thank you for including me in these discussions. I'm now subscribed to license-discuss.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Joe<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:58 AM, John Cowan <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org" target="_blank">cowan@ccil.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Lawrence Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com" target="_blank">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><br>> So, I still don't understand what role "principle" plays in BSD and<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>> GPL dual licensing?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>The principle in question should be a legal maxim but isn't. "Damnunt quod non intelligunt", people fear what they do not understand.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>-- <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>John Cowan <a href="http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan" target="_blank">http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan</a> <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org" target="_blank">cowan@ccil.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>