[License-review] [Was: Submission of OSET Public License for Approval] -- National Security and Public Policy (3.5B and 4)
josh at postgresql.org
Thu Sep 17 15:42:01 UTC 2015
On 09/16/2015 08:11 PM, Meeker, Heather J. wrote:
> Understood, and by implication I gather you would also not contribute to any project under a permissive license.
Nope, because I already do (which you'd realize if you googled me). The
issue is one of asymmetry.
If I contribute to OSET under the OSET license, and I have to obey the
terms of the OSET license if I want to use the OSET software in my own
business. But governments, and favored contractors with complaint
legislators, or even just corrupt beaurocrats, get to use my
contribution *without* the restrictions which I must obey. So the OSET
license creates a 2-class system, in which people with access to the
levers of government have more rights than code contributors do.
Personally I think corrupt legislators and beaurocrats have enough power
already. We don't need to give them more in the terms of a license.
This is materially identical to dual-licensing, where companies offer
code under the GPL, but also commercially license it. I don't
contribute to those projects either (and neither does anyone else,
historically). Imagine if someone asked us to certify a license which
said "corporations can ignore any provision of this license which
conflicts with company policy". This would not be an OSS license.
Due to this provision, I see the OSET license as presented as being in
violation of the OSD, and would not currently vote to certify it.
More information about the License-review