Re: Government License
Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. -- David N. Welton http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Government License
Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete usage scenarios instead? Like cyber crime and/or spying Johannes # web: http://www.jgeppert.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep 2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton dav...@dedasys.com: Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. -- David N. Welton http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
AW: Government License
Even if you could exclude cyber crime and spying from a legal use by your license - do you really think that these users would follow your license? Jan Von: Johannes Geppert [mailto:jo...@apache.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:37 An: community@apache.org Betreff: Re: Government License Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete usage scenarios instead? Like cyber crime and/or spying Johannes # web: http://www.jgeppert.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep 2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton dav...@dedasys.com: Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. -- David N. Welton http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Government License
On 2 July 2014 09:42, Jan Matèrne j...@materne.de wrote: Even if you could exclude cyber crime and spying from a legal use by your license - do you really think that these users would follow your license? of course they would not, but that is beside the point. If you in a license exclude a specific group of people (like redhaired vikings), it would not hold up in court, and you run the risk of being sued for being against a minority. You can anytime exclude a specific use in your license, a good example is pro. licenses that often exclude use in conjunction with nuclear plants. Having made an exclusion in the license, is a possibility to sue for illegal use, or much more important, in case of goverments, bad press (much much effective at the fraction of the cost). rgds jan I Jan *Von:* Johannes Geppert [mailto:jo...@apache.org] *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 09:37 *An:* community@apache.org *Betreff:* Re: Government License Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete usage scenarios instead? Like cyber crime and/or spying Johannes # web: http://www.jgeppert.com twitter: http://twitter.com/jogep 2014-07-02 9:24 GMT+02:00 David Welton dav...@dedasys.com: Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. -- David N. Welton http://www.dedasys.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
Re: Government License
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, David Welton dav...@dedasys.com wrote: Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. I'm with you, Jake.
Re: Government License
Op 2 jul. 2014, om 10:33 heeft Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, David Welton dav...@dedasys.com wrote: Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. I'm with you, Jake. But I would like to keep the line exactly there - near what is generally seen as some sort of denial/exclusion to groups of _people_ based on some form of _prejudice_. As that follows the various legal systems, interpretation of the constitution or whatever in most countries (and almost certainly the contemporary interpretation of those). Excluding certain types of use, certain institutions or other ‚non people’ things is just as undesirable. But I think the situation around this is a bit more complex there - and I think, we, as a community, should cut developers a bit more slack. As there you run into the issue that local laws, legislation and regulation. Which can force developers in specific communities to be cautious for certain areas. A well known one is software used in nuclear installations; others are medical (in quite a few countries), military (in very few) and aviation (decreasingly the case). Dw.
Re: Government License
Nope... Freedome #0 and OSD #6 On Jul 2, 2014, at 3:37 AM, Johannes Geppert jo...@apache.org wrote: Is it maybe possible not to exclude people or organisations, but concrete usage scenarios instead? Like cyber crime and/or spying - To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscr...@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: community-h...@apache.org
RE: Government License
The application of local law is a different matter. There is generally no reason to specify it in a license. Software with a mandated back-door or key-escrow arrangement in its implementation can certainly be open-source unless there is a legal prohibition of disclosing such code, in which case it is not open-source, is it (and that action may be in violation of an open-source license, but that’s a different matter). Disclaimers and statements of warranty are different, although some licenses require that disclaimers be preserved. It is one thing to disclaim software as unsuitable for use in situations where there are hazards to life and property, such as nuclear reactor control software or pacemaker devices, and another to have the software be open-source. The famous Java disclaimer about life-threatening situations is a disclaimer. The obligation to perpetuate the disclaimer is part of a licensing arrangement around the Java trademark and certification process, and doesn’t have anything to do with open-source licensing. The OpenJDK is under GPL2 with a class-path exception, so there is explicitly no warranty whatsoever for any use whatsoever. The special Java disclaimer is not present. (See http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/2df45ac1bf49/LICENSE. - Dennis From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:di...@webweaving.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 01:46 To: community@apache.org Cc: David Welton Subject: Re: Government License Op 2 jul. 2014, om 10:33 heeft Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com mailto:gst...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: [ … ] But I think the situation around this is a bit more complex there - and I think, we, as a community, should cut developers a bit more slack. As there you run into the issue that local laws, legislation and regulation. Which can force developers in specific communities to be cautious for certain areas. A well known one is software used in nuclear installations; others are medical (in quite a few countries), military (in very few) and aviation (decreasingly the case). Dw.
Political Candidate Relations
I have decided to run for State Representative and often get questions from other candidates regarding ways government can be made more efficient. Do you think there is merit in technology groups such as Apache holding forums to educate elected officials on the value of open source? http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
Re: Political Candidate Relations
Yes, good idea. On Jul 2, 2014, at 11:20 AM, McGovern, James james.mcgov...@hp.com wrote: I have decided to run for State Representative and often get questions from other candidates regarding ways government can be made more efficient. Do you think there is merit in technology groups such as Apache holding forums to educate elected officials on the value of open source? http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
Re: Political Candidate Relations
James, In my opinion, government is more a management issue than advancing ideals and personal agendas. If this is possible, which I honestly doubt, things can get better. *Héctor M. Arroyo, BSIT/SE* *(352) 304-9427* On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Musselman andrew.mussel...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, good idea. On Jul 2, 2014, at 11:20 AM, McGovern, James james.mcgov...@hp.com wrote: I have decided to run for State Representative and often get questions from other candidates regarding ways government can be made more efficient. Do you think there is merit in technology groups such as Apache holding forums to educate elected officials on the value of open source? http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
Re: Government License
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 12:24 AM, David Welton dav...@dedasys.com wrote: Closest I've seen in the 'free' area is licensing that forbids military uses. Which is, once again, neither 'free software' nor open source because it goes against the definition. You can't have it both ways: you can't exclude people from using it because they are military, gay, Illinois nazis, Alaskan women, Liechtensteiners or whatever else you happen to dislike. At risk of sounding flippant; the original poster didn't indicate he wanted a license that would be compatible with the definitions of free software or open source :) Hen
Re: Political Candidate Relations
I think that's the wrong question. We're (mostly) a bunch of programmers and know sod all about governance (much as each/most of us will happily expound on what we think we know :) ). I imagine however that many of us would happily offer up some time to hear about the problems that government faces being efficient and share anecdotes and history from our communities that may have useful analogies within the problems being faced by government. For example - I was at a conference where a government group were considering how they could best open source their legacy system and get 'the community' (quotes mine) to help with a rewrite. The press, media and our own self-marketing has convinced people that there are magic community elves waiting to do whatever work might come their way. I made the point that they had to start by identifying the community being talked about; and that that community should be the ones who feel the pain of an inadequate product and want to scratch it (shallow example in the interest of brevity :) ). Hen On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:20 AM, McGovern, James james.mcgov...@hp.com wrote: I have decided to run for State Representative and often get questions from other candidates regarding ways government can be made more efficient. Do you think there is merit in technology groups such as Apache holding forums to educate elected officials on the value of open source? http://facebook.com/McGovernForCT
