[License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval
Meeker, Heather J.
hmeeker at omm.com
Sat Sep 12 01:53:39 UTC 2015
I will, thanks. Please bear with me, as I am digging my way out of a lot of emails.
From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh at postgresql.org]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:29 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review; Meeker, Heather J.
Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval
On 09/11/2015 09:11 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> When you add "national security or necessity of public interest" into
> that mix, you are adding factors which are much woollier, and
> furthermore _are_ under the control of the licensee (in the case where
> it's a government using the software for their own elections) and do not
> have to be written down. Who defines "the public interest" or "national
> security"? The government does. Does it have to document its decisions
> and open them for scrutiny? No. Which means they get to ignore any bits
> of the license they don't like as long as they can come up with a
> "public interest" reason why obeying the license isn't a good idea.
> Therefore, I would say that this change is a significant one.
I can't say I'm too keen about the language in the MPL either, but
that's water under the bridge.
Heather, care to address Gerv's points?
More information about the License-review