[CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for Approval

[Brent Turner]

Sounds like the McCarthy-esque " constituency" list needs to be further
educated ?

As I stated to this group previous it would be interesting  to hear
directly from their mysterious  "  constituency of procurement managers "


On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> FYI.  Larry
>
>
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Meeker, Heather J."
> Date:09/02/2015 5:56 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> Cc: Gregory Miller ,legal at osetfoundation.org,John Sebes ,
> christine at osetfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of OSET Public License for
> Approval
>
> Hello list members,
>
>
>
> I am writing to address a few of the issues that have been raised by the
> discussion so far.  Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful questions and
> comments.
>
>
>
> 1. No Problem.  The concerns articulated in our rationale document have
> been expressed to us by our constituency of procurement managers, so we are
> perplexed by the assertion that we are addressing “a non-existent problem.”
>  It is true that some governments accept open source when they procure
> software in some contexts, but “government” is not one single, amorphous
> group.  There is a difference between procurement of systems via an
> overarching contract that include open source software, and procurement of
> a pure open source product.  In other words, we are trying to provide a
> means for replacing the procurement contract -- not merely trying to skate
> in as an appendix to it.   We are trying to find the path that will enable
> state and local elections procurement decision-makers to use open source
> software under our license alone.  OSET is not in the business of systems
> integration.  All we have is our open source license.
>
>
>
> 2. GPL Only.  We also understand many in the free software community feel
> strongly that software should only be licensed under GPL.  That is their
> prerogative to choose for their own code, but open source is more inclusive
> than that.  Our license is expressly compatible with GPL.  Anyone who
> prefers to use our software under GPL, or to combine our code into a GPL
> project, can do so.   Anyone who finds they cannot use the software under
> GPL -- due to the rationale we articulated  in our submission -- can use
> the code under our license.  Our constituency tells us they fall into the
> latter category, and it is in service of them that we have prepared and
> submitted the license.
>
>
>
> 3. Is it Open Source?  Finally, we prepared our license to fit the open
> source definition.  We hope that anyone who has concerns about this will
> express them here.  But the license is an open source license if it fits
> the open source definition.
>
>
>
> --Heather
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150902/31722283/attachment.html>