[License-review] OSET Foundation

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Wed Sep 9 20:13:43 UTC 2015

When did justification for not using GPL suddenly become a litmus test for new license approval?  I didn't get the memo about there being OSD #11 License submitter must provide justification for not using GPLV3 because they are involved in software for specific endeavors Larry thinks is important.

They want a weak copyleft.  GPLV3 isn't one.  What further justification do you need for not using GPLv3?  They don't need to provide a point by point refutation of your memo.  At most it's "tell us why vanilla MPL isn't satisfactory".

From: License-review <license-review-bounces at opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org>> on behalf of Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>>
Reply-To: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>>, OSI License Review <license-review at opensource.org<mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:03 PM
To: 'Gregory Miller' <gmiller at osetfoundation.org<mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org>>
Cc: OSI License Review <license-review at opensource.org<mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>, 'Christine Santoro' <csantoro at osetfoundation.org<mailto:csantoro at osetfoundation.org>>, 'CAVO' <cavo at opensource.org<mailto:cavo at opensource.org>>, 'Meegan Gregg' <meegan at osetfoundation.org<mailto:meegan at osetfoundation.org>>, "legal at osetfoundation.org<mailto:legal at osetfoundation.org>" <legal at osetfoundation.org<mailto:legal at osetfoundation.org>>
Subject: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation

Hi Greg,

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<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>>
Cc: Christine Santoro <csantoro at osetfoundation.org<mailto:csantoro at osetfoundation.org>>; Meeker, Heather J. <hmeeker at omm.com<mailto:hmeeker at omm.com>>; Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org<mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org>>; CAVO <cavo at opensource.org<mailto:cavo at opensource.org>>; Meegan Gregg <meegan at osetfoundation.org<mailto:meegan at osetfoundation.org>>; legal at osetfoundation.org<mailto: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?


Gregory Miller
Co-Executive Director & Chief Development Officer
OSET Foundation | TrustTheVote Project
www.OSETFoundation.org<http://www.osetfoundation.org/> | www.trustthevote.org<http://www.trustthevote.org/>
Twitter: @TrustTheVote | @OSET
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150909/04522d93/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list