<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Richard,</div><div><br></div><div>Concur - this is just adding confusing to the mix. </div><div><br></div><div>Now contracting officials will be unclear if they need to use OSET instead of GPL3. Just because you can build a new license does not mean you should. I have seen nothing compelling here that points out where GPL3 fails to provide what is required.<br></div><div><br></div><div>We need just one clear and consistent voice here.</div><div><br></div><div>David</div><div><br></div>
<blockquote id="replyBlockquote" webmail="1" style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;">
<div id="wmQuoteWrapper">
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: Re: [CAVO] [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License<br>
for Approval<br>
From: Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:fontana@sharpeleven.org">fontana@sharpeleven.org</a>><br>
Date: Sun, September 06, 2015 1:51 pm<br>
To: <a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>, License submissions for OSI review<br>
<<a href="mailto:license-review@opensource.org">license-review@opensource.org</a>><br>
Cc: 'CAVO' <<a href="mailto:cavo@opensource.org">cavo@opensource.org</a>><br>
<br>
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:34:15AM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:<br>
> I'm concentrating instead on OSET's argument that government agencies need this license in order to properly acquire FOSS election software. If that's a valid fear, our community has some work to do to fix it -- and not necessarily introduce another license to gloss it over.<br>
<br>
I will say that I'm rather skeptical of this argument. I don't see how<br>
you can write an open source license that will successfully eliminate<br>
the need for separate procurement transactions. Moreover the existence<br>
of the kinds of procurement-related transaction costs that OSET seems<br>
to be concerned about hasn't been an obstacle to procurement of<br>
GPL-licensed software, in my experience.<br>
<br>
Also -- and I think you made a related point -- it seems OSET must be<br>
assuming that the product software stack that will include<br>
OSET-PL-licensed software will not also include any other copyleft (or<br>
maybe specifically GPL)-licensed software, which may be<br>
unrealistic. For example, in the case of a software stack that<br>
includes a Linux-based operating system with some OSET-PL-licensed<br>
software running on top, it would seem nothing is gained from the<br>
special features of the OSET-PL aimed at this procurement concern.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure how much of a bearing those observations should have on<br>
whether this licensed is approved by the OSI, though.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CAVO mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org">CAVO@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote></span></body></html>