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

[Brent Turner]

Maybe there are answers in the sidebar- - What compels someone like Mitch
Kapor to create a new license for election systems ?  What compels him to
be in the space of "open source "  voting systems to begin with ?
Certainly we assume he has more than  enough money but is it just greed for
more ?  Is it the power that comes with pioneering a new license so that he
can be the " kingpin " of voting ?  This is the concern of the open source
voting pioneer community. OSET has consistently ignored. the open source
community and now this new license issue is upon us.  Why would we need a
new license rather than use GPLv3 ? .

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> There is nobody more qualified than Heather Meeker to shepherd the
> creation of a new open source license. She's an expert.
>
>
>
> Intelligent and serious consideration went into the OSET Public License
> (OPL). After a detailed review by this OSI license-review@ committee and
> perhaps some slight modifications by its authors, this license will almost
> certainly be approved.
>
>
>
> What concerns me still, though, is how this new license will be absorbed
> by the open source community and by election officials around the world.
> Heather correctly criticized me earlier for arguing that this new license
> is addressing "a non-existent problem." Actually, it is mostly adding to an
> existing difficult problem.
>
>
>
> David Webber here accurately described "an open source solution stack for
> a typical voting solution today [that[ includes a whole raft of licenses."
> Any government agency that intends to acquire an open source election
> system will inevitably require components such as an operating system,
> database, printer and scanner drivers, and a main voting software module,
> presumably under a cornucopia of licenses including Apache, MPL, ECL, GPL,
> and a whole lot of BSD. We expect FOSS and commercial add-ons that
> aggregate with that election stuff.
>
>
>
> Add to this one more open source license.
>
>
>
> We'll also have to wait for all the potentially interested developer
> foundations and commercial distributors and customers to understand if the
> new license is compatible with what they are already doing – specifically
> for derivative works.
>
>
>
> Does anyone here believe that a new open source license will cure the
> existing confusion among government agencies that already engage in FOSS
> licensing?
>
>
>
> As for me, I'm personally rather bored with evaluating (yet another) open
> source license, so I leave the rest of that fun discussion to everyone
> else. :-)
>
>
>
> Have a great holiday weekend!
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150904/b3887ecd/attachment.html>