[License-review] Fwd: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: Submission of OSET Public License for Approval

[Brent Turner]

We have excellent relationships with government purchasers nationally and
internationally. I have never heard this from any of them, and have asked
previous to see this " list ".

GPL v3 has advantages the special new extra  license likely does not have
imo

I am always curious about purveyors within the election system space, so
please pardon any perceived irritated  tone. We would obviously rather see
Mr. Kapor's money and power utilized to create air tight systems.. rather
than quibble with him about unnecessary licenses
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public
License for Approval
To: CAVO <cavo at opensource.org>


Sounds like the McCarthy-esque " constituency" list needs to be further
educated ?

As I stated to this group previous it would be interesting  to hear
directly from their mysterious  "  constituency of procurement managers "


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> FYI.  Larry
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Meeker, Heather J."
> Date:09/02/2015 5:56 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> Cc: Gregory Miller ,legal at osetfoundation.org,John Sebes ,
> christine at osetfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for
> Approval
>
> Hello list members,
>
>
>
> I am writing to address a few of the issues that have been raised by the
> discussion so far.  Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful questions and
> comments.
>
>
>
> 1. No Problem.  The concerns articulated in our rationale document have
> been expressed to us by our constituency of procurement managers, so we are
> perplexed by the assertion that we are addressing “a non-existent problem.”
>  It is true that some governments accept open source when they procure
> software in some contexts, but “government” is not one single, amorphous
> group.  There is a difference between procurement of systems via an
> overarching contract that include open source software, and procurement of
> a pure open source product.  In other words, we are trying to provide a
> means for replacing the procurement contract -- not merely trying to skate
> in as an appendix to it.   We are trying to find the path that will enable
> state and local elections procurement decision-makers to use open source
> software under our license alone.  OSET is not in the business of systems
> integration.  All we have is our open source license.
>
>
>
> 2. GPL Only.  We also understand many in the free software community feel
> strongly that software should only be licensed under GPL.  That is their
> prerogative to choose for their own code, but open source is more inclusive
> than that.  Our license is expressly compatible with GPL.  Anyone who
> prefers to use our software under GPL, or to combine our code into a GPL
> project, can do so.   Anyone who finds they cannot use the software under
> GPL -- due to the rationale we articulated  in our submission -- can use
> the code under our license.  Our constituency tells us they fall into the
> latter category, and it is in service of them that we have prepared and
> submitted the license.
>
>
>
> 3. Is it Open Source?  Finally, we prepared our license to fit the open
> source definition.  We hope that anyone who has concerns about this will
> express them here.  But the license is an open source license if it fits
> the open source definition.
>
>
>
> --Heather
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150902/315664fc/attachment.html>