[License-review] OSET Public License

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Wed Nov 4 22:42:22 UTC 2015


I believe the mailman content filtering settings for this list will
allow pdf attachments, so feel free to try that.

Richard


On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 10:08:53PM +0000, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:
> Richard, we would propose to address the issue in the note below by moving the text around to make the portion mentioning OSET into precatory language, rather than part of the agreement.  It is a little bit like what is done here:  http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.  That way, the text of the license will be "templatized" for use by others.  To show what I mean, I have a version to submit showing in redline form the changes we are proposing to make.  A process question: How should I deliver it?  I can attach a .pdf to an email to this list -- will that work?  
> 
> --Heather
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 7:02 PM
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> Cc: Gregory Miller
> Subject: Re: [License-review] OSET Public License
> 
> Heather,
> 
> That modification of section 4 satisfies the OSI's concerns about that
> provision. The only other remaining concern was something I raised a
> while back: the initial sentence says:
> 
>   THIS LICENSE DEFINES THE RIGHTS OF USE, REPRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION,
>   MODIFICATION, AND REDISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN COVERED SOFTWARE (AS
>   DEFINED BELOW) RELEASED BY THE OPEN SOURCE ELECTION TECHNOLOGY
>   FOUNDATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE “OSDV FOUNDATION”).
> 
> Given that this license is supposed to be usable by anyone, and
> particularly because it has a copyleft condition, the specific
> reference there to the OSET Foundation seems at least suboptimal. Is
> there any reason why the OSET Foundation needs to have its name in
> that language?
> 
> I don't think there is any OSI process requirement such that you would
> need to release the modified version under a new revision number,
> though you may wish to do that anyway.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 02:55:31AM +0000, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:
> > Richard, thank you very much for sending this feedback, and thanks to everyone for spending their time and energy on the review.
> > 
> > If the license will be approved with the modification, we will revise it to make the change described below.  Please confirm I have revised it in accordance with the request, as there are some non-substantive variations between our Section 4 and the corresponding one in MPL 2.0.  I gather that, as a matter of process, OSI would approve subject to us making the modification, and then we release the modification under a new revision number.  If not, please let us know.
> > 
> > 4. Inability to Comply Due to Statue or Regulation
> > If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Software due to statute, judicial order, [ADD: OR] regulation, [DELETE: NATIONAL SECURITY, OR NECESSITY OF PUBLIC INTEREST,] then You must: (a) comply with the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible; and (b) describe the limitations and the code they affect. Such description must be included in the notices required under Section 3.4. Except to the extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be sufficiently detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill to be able to understand it.
> > 
> > Heather
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 2:00 PM
> > To: license-review at opensource.org
> > Subject: [License-review] OSET Public License
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Given the concerns expressed here about the OSET Public License
> > privileging one class of licensees, we ask that the OSET Foundation
> > revise the OSET Public License to revert section 4 to the
> > corresponding ancestral version of that section in MPL 2.0.
> > 
> > Richard
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at opensource.org
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at opensource.org
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review



More information about the License-review mailing list