Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Patrick Masson]

Larry,

Thanks for pinging us. After a few informal discussions folks on the
Board are comfortable with that last sentence.

As you know I sent off a note to Mr. Fried with two other issues: 

1. Page one provides definitions including, "Open source: A term
signifying the source code would be publicly available." This is
an incomplete definition, the "Open Source Definition" can be
found here:http://opensource.org/osd  It would be better to
simply state, "Open source software: A term used to describe
software carrying an OSI Approved Open Source License." You may
also want to include in the document a link to the OSI's list of
approved licenses . This
definition would ensure that all of the attributes of the Open
Source Definition, not just access to the source code, are
included in the definition.  For example, access to code alone
does not mean that the code can be modified, or that those
modifications may be redistributed. By including a reference to
the OSI's approved licenses, you will also help all those
involved in reviewing potential software for use in voting
systems can easily and consistently identify appropriate
software that is internationally recognized as aligning with the
Open Source Definition, ensuring the software freedom you seek:
the permission to use, review, revise, and redistribute. 

2. Page eight states, "Open source software is classified as a
GPL; hence all improved versions of the original software must
remain free, disallowing proprietary companies to adopt the
software, make changes, and sell it on their own terms."
Limiting the definition of open source to only software
distributed with the GPL is incorrect. As stated above, open
source software is internationally recognized as software
distributed with any OSI Approved Open Source License, and
includes permissive licenses
. Narrowly defining open
source as only software carrying a GPL or copyleft license does
not reflect the open source software movement.

If CAVO is recommending the use of GPL that's their prerogative, the OSI
would just want to be sure it is not implied that we are and we also
want to be sure open source is presented/referenced correctly.

Also, another point came up in our discussions after reading the
proposal which might indicate some confusion, from page 8: "This does
not mean anyone can change the code and immediately publish and
implement it; all rights to the code still belong to the original
creator (in the case that the CCSF adopts its own open source voting
system, the CCSF would own the code), and changes would need to be
approved by the owner before being implemented. Additionally, these
changes would need to be submitted to and approved by the California
Secretary of State’s office."

It would appear this passage is an attempt to assure readers that, just
because the code is accessible and editable, edits would not
automatically be pulled into the production version of the software run
by CCSF. However the passage actually reads (to some of us) as if CCSF
claims to have the ability to control the derivatives of any GPL
licensed voting software it originally developed--which it obviously
could not.

Hope this helps,
Patrick





Tue, 2015-05-26 at 12:26 -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> OSI is now hosting the open source California Association of Voting
> Officials (CAVO). Thanks OSI!
> There was a question on that email list recently about why CAVO
> prefers GPLv3 for voting software. I had recommended GPLv3 to CAVO
> several months earlier. Below was my response. 
> The local government agency officer who asked about CAVO's open source
> licensing had been confused by some commercial organizations who are
> promoting non-open licenses for their voting and elections software. 
> The final line below (not the actual license recommendation!) is the
> message that OSI wants to send. Right? 
> 
> /Larry
> 
> *
> 
> > My understanding is GPLv3 is the CAVO preference from OSI
> standards..
> Yes, for reasons relating to reassurance that all derivative works
> will be acceptable for voting around the world. The "strength" and
> "popularity" of the GPLv3 make it a good license for universal voting
> software.
> But that doesn't mean that the GPLv3 must be the only open source
> license used for free software. 
> ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not.
> 
> ___
> CAVO mailing list
> c...@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo


-- 
|||  |  |||||  |||||||  
Patrick Masson
General Manager & Director
Open Source 

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Brian J. Fox]

It *is* right, by the definition that we’re using for Open Source.

On May 26, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Grahame Grieve 
 wrote:
> 
> "ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not"
> 
> I don't think that the last bit is right. 
> 
> "other licenses cannot be known to be" or "other licenses may not be" - but 
> you can't outright claim that just because OSI has not approved a license, 
> it's *not* open source
> 
> Grahame
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen  > wrote:
> OSI is now hosting the open source California Association of Voting Officials 
> (CAVO). Thanks OSI!
> 
>  
> 
> There was a question on that email list recently about why CAVO prefers GPLv3 
> for voting software. I had recommended GPLv3 to CAVO several months earlier. 
> Below was my response. 
> 
>  
> 
> The local government agency officer who asked about CAVO's open source 
> licensing had been confused by some commercial organizations who are 
> promoting non-open licenses for their voting and elections software. 
> 
>  
> 
> The final line below (not the actual license recommendation!) is the message 
> that OSI wants to send. Right? 
> 
>  
> 
> /Larry
> 
>  
> 
> *
> 
> > My understanding is GPLv3 is the CAVO preference from OSI standards..
> 
> Yes, for reasons relating to reassurance that all derivative works will be 
> acceptable for voting around the world. The "strength" and "popularity" of 
> the GPLv3 make it a good license for universal voting software.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that the GPLv3 must be the only open source license 
> used for free software. 
> 
> ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not.
> 
> 
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org 
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -
> http://www.healthintersections.com.au 
>  / grah...@healthintersections.com.au 
>  / +61 411 867 065
> ___
> CAVO mailing list
> c...@opensource.org 
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo 
> 
Thanks,

Brian
--
Brian J. Fox
Founder/CEO
Opus Logica, Inc.
A: 901 Olive St., 93101
O: 76-BAFFLE-76
C: 617.858.5586

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Lawrence Rosen]

Thank you Allison and Grahame, I'll have to be more precise next time. You
can help me. What would you suggest we say when the OSET Foundation proposes
a voting or election system with a non-OSI-approved "open source license"
called OPL: 

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b
0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf. 

Should OSI say more than "not approved"?

/Larry


-Original Message-
From: Allison Randal [mailto:alli...@opensource.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:44 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Lawrence Rosen
Cc: CAVO
Subject: Re: [CAVO] [License-discuss] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

On 05/26/2015 02:44 PM, Grahame Grieve wrote:
> "ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not"
> 
> I don't think that the last bit is right. 
> 
> "other licenses cannot be known to be" or "other licenses may not be" 
> - but you can't outright claim that just because OSI has not approved 
> a license, it's *not* open source

Yes, good clarification. That's certainly not what we meant to imply.
Mainly we were focused on the fact that the set of open source licenses
includes more than just the GPL.

Allison
___
CAVO mailing list
c...@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo

___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Grahame Grieve]

well, there might be a scope issue here.

"for a particular purpose, non OSI approved licenses are not considered
open source'

But perhaps that's implicit in the context and only confusing for me
because you quoted a piece out of context - that's what Brian implies.

Grahame


On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Lawrence Rosen 
wrote:

> Thank you Allison and Grahame, I'll have to be more precise next time. You
> can help me. What would you suggest we say when the OSET Foundation
> proposes
> a voting or election system with a non-OSI-approved "open source license"
> called OPL:
>
>
> http://static1.squarespace.com/static/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b
> 0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf.
>
> Should OSI say more than "not approved"?
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Allison Randal [mailto:alli...@opensource.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:44 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; Lawrence Rosen
> Cc: CAVO
> Subject: Re: [CAVO] [License-discuss] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft
>
> On 05/26/2015 02:44 PM, Grahame Grieve wrote:
> > "ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not"
> >
> > I don't think that the last bit is right.
> >
> > "other licenses cannot be known to be" or "other licenses may not be"
> > - but you can't outright claim that just because OSI has not approved
> > a license, it's *not* open source
>
> Yes, good clarification. That's certainly not what we meant to imply.
> Mainly we were focused on the fact that the set of open source licenses
> includes more than just the GPL.
>
> Allison
> ___
> CAVO mailing list
> c...@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>



-- 
-
http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grah...@healthintersections.com.au
/ +61 411 867 065
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Allison Randal]

On 05/26/2015 02:54 PM, Brian J. Fox wrote:
> It *is* right, by the definition that we’re using for Open Source.

It is very close to right. A license is open source if it complies with
the Open Source Definition. A license might be open source, but not yet
reviewed the by OSI. We use the set of licenses approved by the OSI as a
stand-in, because they're a clearly defined set that we've carefully
reviewed for compliance with the OSD. But, it's important to remember
that the principles of the OSD are the core of it all.

Allison
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Patrick Masson]

I would also add that OSI approval creates trust. OSI approval assures
those who may not have the legal understanding or resources that the
software they are reviewing affords all of the opportunities of the OSD.
It is much easier for organizations to check if some software is "open
source," guaranteeing the software freedom they seek, by reviewing the
OSI approved licenses than it would be to review each individual license
to assess if it is OSD compliant. I'm confident there are other licenses
that comply with the OSD, but I'm not confident I or previous
organizations I have worked for are competent in determining that. Thus
I would rely on the OSI list.

In addition, I would also point to examples were a proposed license's
wording was enhanced through the review process. That is, even if the
license was OSD compliant, ambiguity was avoided through contributions,
questions, suggestions of the community. The value of pointing to OSI
Approved licenses isn't simply about protecting/promoting the OSI or our
vision, it is about providing a nexus of trust and quality.

On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 07:55 -0700, Allison Randal wrote:

> On 05/26/2015 02:54 PM, Brian J. Fox wrote:
> > It *is* right, by the definition that we’re using for Open Source.
> 
> It is very close to right. A license is open source if it complies with
> the Open Source Definition. A license might be open source, but not yet
> reviewed the by OSI. We use the set of licenses approved by the OSI as a
> stand-in, because they're a clearly defined set that we've carefully
> reviewed for compliance with the OSD. But, it's important to remember
> that the principles of the OSD are the core of it all.
> 
> Allison
> ___
> CAVO mailing list
> c...@opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo


___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Robin Miller]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Patrick Masson 
wrote:

>  I would also add that OSI approval creates trust. OSI approval assures
> those who may not have the legal understanding or resources that the
> software they are reviewing affords all of the opportunities of the OSD.
>

Listen! Listen! (Hear, hear, even.)

When a marketing or PR person tells me their company wrote their own open
source license I ask, "Is it OSI-approved?"

Often it is not. Or... err... their software is "based on open source."

The OSI still has lots of pull, at least in my world.

Thanks for keeping on !

-- 
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
Bradenton, Florida, USA
- Slashdot video editor
- ITKE Cheap Computing blogger
- Member, Internet Press Guild
- Member, American Legion
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss

Re: [License-discuss] [CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

[Jim Jagielski]

> On May 27, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Patrick Masson  wrote:
> 
> I would also add that OSI approval creates trust.

I'd say more that trust. Let's be blunt: The legal issues related
to using, consuming and/or leveraging open source are legend.
Use of a non OSI-approved "open source" license is simply a
guarantee to spend huge amounts of billable hours having
one's legal team vet the license, if anyone even bothers to
*consider* a non-OSI license in the first place. An OSI approved
license lowers a LOT of barriers to entry.
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss