Re: Source licensing

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 20:13:39 CDT

On May 9, 2004, at 7:47 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
> How about, closed proprietary source, published proprietary source,
> and free software?

Those look like good phrases to me.

> You mention a variety of "free" software. Which "free" software model
> should be used for the licensing/ownership of UC-developed software?

I actually don't care nearly as much as a lot of people. If I were
making the decision all by myself, I'd probably say Public Domain (or
BSDish... the 'B' in there being UC-Berkeley, after all).

But when we went over the discussion back in August, a lot of
developers felt strongly about the GPL's guarantee that proprietary
companies not be able to incorporate our code into derived,
closed/proprietary products. I'm certainly not against GPL either (or
EVMPL, which isn't much different, and hopefully compatible).

Something like Karl suggests--registering service marks or trademarks
on "OVC compliant" or some logo--seems like a great idea to me. I've
never been through ISO 9000 myself, but most people seem to shudder at
those words :-). But he might be right about the political benefit of
that.

Even if a proprietary vendor used our code, they couldn't win an "OVC
compliant" mark without meeting OVC standards. Obviously, those
standards would need to be non-discriminatory; they might involve
certification fees though. The real "value proposition" IMO should not
be using some lines of code developed in EVM2003/OVC-reference-design,
but in being able to claim OVC standards compliance legally.

> Second, I wanted to make the distinction between VoteHere's approach
> to published software, and the OVC's approach (cases 2 and 3 above).
> Is such a distinction worthwhile? Thanks.

I find pointing out the distinction between VoteHere's
"look-but-don't-touch-and-sign-the-NDA" and OVC's EVMPL to be quite
important. You've done a good job of describing the licensing space
above.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT