[License-review] OSET Foundation
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Wed Sep 9 19:03:16 UTC 2015
Valid concerns have been raised here and on license-review@ about OSET's attempt to insert a new license into the existing collection for (what we call) invalid reasons. It does not help to have you point repeatedly to your Rationale document and yet refuse to comment specifically on CAVO's.
What don't you like about GPLv3 for election software? Please answer specifically.
I can assure you that government agencies acquire and use GPL software every day!
I'm adding license-review@ back to this thread so we can all hear your response. If participants here believe that license-discuss@ is a more appropriate venue for this thread, someone please move it there and cut back the other cc's. Thanks.
From: Gregory Miller [mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 11:24 AM
To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
Cc: Christine Santoro <csantoro at osetfoundation.org>; Meeker, Heather J. <hmeeker at omm.com>; Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>; CAVO <cavo at opensource.org>; Meegan Gregg <meegan at osetfoundation.org>; legal at osetfoundation.org
Subject: Re: OSET Foundation
Good Morning Larry-
Running into a busy balance of the day here, but with regard to your question, our position is best laid out in our Rationale document, and our recently updated FAQ, both available at www.osetfoundation.org/public-license <http://www.osetfoundation.org/public-license> .
Thanks very much and have a great day.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> > wrote in relevant part:
....– please respond directly to my own rationale memo explaining why GPLv3 is the most appropriate license for elections software. Do you disagree and why?
Co-Executive Director & Chief Development Officer
OSET Foundation | TrustTheVote Project
<http://www.osetfoundation.org/> www.OSETFoundation.org | <http://www.trustthevote.org/> www.trustthevote.org
Twitter: @TrustTheVote | @OSET
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review