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

Brent Turner turnerbrentm at gmail.com
Sun Sep 6 18:21:47 UTC 2015

I guess it begs the question.. to preserve the integrity of the standard-
 does OSI shy away from approving submissions that are intended to " game '
open source standards. ? .  i.e.  are point scores reduced for sliminess ?
Perhaps that is too hard to analyze / enforce.. but maybe there should be
an ethics component.  That's why I ask voting system software folks .." Why
did you get into this space ? "  If it's to " clean up elections '..  use
GPL v3

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>

> On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:34:15AM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > 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 will say that I'm rather skeptical of this argument. I don't see how
> you can write an open source license that will successfully eliminate
> the need for separate procurement transactions. Moreover the existence
> of the kinds of procurement-related transaction costs that OSET seems
> to be concerned about hasn't been an obstacle to procurement of
> GPL-licensed software, in my experience.
> Also -- and I think you made a related point -- it seems OSET must be
> assuming that the product software stack that will include
> OSET-PL-licensed software will not also include any other copyleft (or
> maybe specifically GPL)-licensed software, which may be
> unrealistic. For example, in the case of a software stack that
> includes a Linux-based operating system with some OSET-PL-licensed
> software running on top, it would seem nothing is gained from the
> special features of the OSET-PL aimed at this procurement concern.
> I'm not sure how much of a bearing those observations should have on
> whether this licensed is approved by the OSI, though.
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150906/9fc11e80/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list