[CAVO] Fwd: "least restrictive" is polar opposite of GPL

Brent Turner turnerbrentm at gmail.com
Mon Aug 10 01:19:40 UTC 2015

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David RR Webber (XML) <david at drrw.info>
Date: Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: "least restrictive" is polar opposite of GPL
To: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>, Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Mayer <timbmayer at gmail.com>


Yes - this one is slippery - and a paradox - so we need to frame set.  And
basically we need to say - it is not enough to just state you want the
least restrictive license - there are more factors in play here.

a) Least restrictive license is a good thing - we want maximum access to
the source code - but there is a caveat
b) Removing all restrictions can result in the reverse, where the code is
hijacked, forked and then closed down
c) We need open public record formats that are transparent within the EMS

So we need to state that there are four things needed

1) Open public license for the source code (least restrictive is OK)
2) Latest current and complete source code is published to public open
repository (GitHub, SourceForge, et al)
3) Modifications and improvements must be contributed back to the public
4) Voting record formats used must be in a public open specification and
the mapping used published

Using GPL3 ensures that the 1 thru 3 should happen.

Apache license only secures 1) while 2) and 3) are not prescribed.  We see
that those not using GPL3 are punting on 2 thru 4 to varying degrees,
flying under false flags to mislead the uninformed.

In future we need to have people stating these 4 items when they publish
RFIs, et al.  We have seen first hand what happens if this is not stated -
people take over a project - take the open source - and immediately imprint
themselves and avoid doing 2) 3) and 4).

Hope that helps clarify all this.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: "least restrictive" is polar opposite of GPL
From: Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, August 09, 2015 4:26 pm
To: Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com>, David Webber <david at drrw.info>
Cc: Tim Mayer <timbmayer at gmail.com>

David-   Please give Alan your thoughts regarding the flip side of this
license issue coin

I know we all agree on GPL v 3 but I'm sure Alan will appreciate your

Best-  BT

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Alan Dechert <dechert at gmail.com> wrote:

> see
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150809/33aed2f8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Selection_268.png
Type: image/png
Size: 43777 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150809/33aed2f8/attachment.png>

More information about the CAVO mailing list