[License-review] [Was: Submission of OSET Public License for Approval] -- National Security and Public Policy (3.5B and 4)

[Meeker, Heather J.]

It's a good question.  Clearly if someone downstream adds restrictions inconsistent with the OSD, it would not be open source any more.  But that would also be possible for any permissive license as well.  (I just saw one today that was BSD + a "non-commercial" restriction.)

-----Original Message-----
From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:55 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review
Subject: Re: [License-review] [Was: Submission of OSET Public License for Approval] -- National Security and Public Policy (3.5B and 4)

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:34:06AM +0000, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:
> §   3.5B Application of Additional Terms. We allowed additional conditions
> specifically to address national security or public interest concerns as well
> as state and federal procurement regulations. This is an important aspect of
> the unique target audience for this license – federal, state, county, and/or
> municipal elections administration agencies.
> 
> § 4 Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation.  We added national
> security and necessity of public interest to the list of circumstances due to
> which the licensee may be unable to comply with the terms of the license. 

Is OSET contemplating that software distributed under the OSET Public
License along with section 3.5 B conditions will be in all cases
describable as 'Open Source', assuming approval of the OSET PL by the
OSI?

I'm a little concerned about the potential for commercially-motivated
open-washing here.

Richard
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review