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

Brent Turner turnerbrentm at gmail.com
Sun Sep 6 17:16:48 UTC 2015

I agree and defer to Mr. Rosen and Mr. Webber on those points. We must
educate government-- not feed them more confusion and nuance via licenses.
I still think OSET's "list" of government voting system purchasers craving
their yet to be approved license is more crafty action, and a solution in
search of a nebulous problem.

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> Richard Fontana wrote:
> > all I'm seeing here so far is general concern about the OSET Foundation's
> > close connection to the wealthy Mr. Kapor
> Hi Richard, I don't think that's a "general concern." That was Brent
> Turner's email, not mine. I'm not complaining about Mitch Kapor's wealth;
> I'm merely envious of that and ignore it otherwise. :-)
> I'm concentrating instead on OSET's argument that government agencies need
> this license in order to properly acquire FOSS election software. If that's
> a valid fear, our community has some work to do to fix it -- and not
> necessarily introduce another license to gloss it over.
> I'm completely in favor of multiple FOSS-licensed components in an
> election system, just as David Webber described. (As you know, I advocated
> that general acceptance of FOSS at Apache over the objections of certain
> license zealots there.) If OSI approves the OSET Public License, then we
> should accept election system components under that license too.
> I have specifically advocated that the *core* election software be
> licensed under GPLv3. That way it will play as secure and important and
> trusted and open a role in our government as Linux already does. You
> already forwarded my email to this list on that suggestion. But that's up
> to authors of FOSS software, not me.
> /Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Fontana [mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org]
> Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 7:36 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>; CAVO <cavo at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] [CAVO] Submission of OSET Public License for
> Approval
> 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:
> [<LER>] <snip>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150906/64b904b9/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list