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

[Richard Fontana]

How would CAVO, or the open source voting systems space generally, be
harmed if this license were approved? (How is it any different than if
the OSET Foundation decided to use an existing non-GPLv3 OSI-approved
license, such as MPL 2.0 ... or even "GPLv2 only"?)

I think the politics lurking behind these license submissions are
worth bringing to light and examining (something which hasn't been
done enough in the past, IMO) but all I'm seeing here so far is
general concern about the OSET Foundation's close connection to the
wealthy Mr. Kapor.


On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 07:50:14PM -0700, Brent Turner wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review