<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 4, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Brian Behlendorf <<a href="mailto:brian@behlendorf.com" class="">brian@behlendorf.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On Mon, 3 Jun 2019, Christopher Sean Morrison via License-discuss wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">There are myriad complexities and Gov’t players encounter not just a lack of support, but antagonistic and ill-informed opinions pervasive. As it stands GOSS is continuing to grow, despite a general lack of support and understanding, but I do believe we and the OSI can do better, can do more, and it will only help Open Source.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">For an oddball government open source licensing story of the day, check this out:<br class=""><br class=""><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1784" class="">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1784</a><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>That is interesting, thanks for sharing.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">The California Assembly just approved a bill, AB1784, that encourages the development of Open Source (OSI-approved)-licensed elections software by providing $16M worth of "matching funds" to CA counties (who actually buy elections gear) when they procure such software. I feel this is an appropriate use of my tax dollars and while no panacea for securing elections, will hopefully lead to more public scrutiny in the process of elections and more competition for procurement dollars. So far so good.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I’m not as knowledgable in State rights, but I believe State governments receive copyright protection under Title 17 so long as it’s not their actual edicts / laws. This analysis seems to concur: <a href="https://garson-law.com/can-state-governments-own-rights-in-copyright/" class="">https://garson-law.com/can-state-governments-own-rights-in-copyright/</a></div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I'd love to understand the arguments that led to the conclusion that GPLv3 licensed works represent a greater public good here and thus justify more subsidy than others.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Me too! I wonder if public good was even the reasoning. It may simply be a preference, social agenda, or technical means to fulfill a transparency requirement. It's almost certainly discoverable if you can get ahold of the lead representative for the bill or, at worse, via the CPRA (state version of FOIA).</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Cheers!</div><div>Sean</div><div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>