Re: Open Source licensing, Take 2

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Tue May 10 2005 - 14:18:43 CDT

On May 10, 2005, at 2:58 PM, Alan Dechert wrote:
> There are lots of licenses to consider. For example, this chart shows
> attributes of 54 licenses:

Without looking, I know that 45-50 of those are meaningless
distractions that some company or project pushed for vanity reasons.
There are a small number of open source licenses that might merit our
serious attention. Like maybe 4-5, tops.

> Still, processes, threat model, motivations, legal compliance (highly
> variable in election code), distribution model, business model, etc.,
> are likely to be sufficiently different that straight GPL is unlikely
> to have all the features we need.

I doubt this also. I never bought Doug's reasoning about the extra
clause in EVMPL. The code audit/history issue is really a different
question than the licensing, and shmushing them together doesn't really
do anything for us in practice.

A much more useful definition of Public Software than those proposed
would be:

(1) It's Free Software (see definition at ...)
(2) It's certified, monitored, vouched for, etc. by blah blah ...

There's no good reason to muck with part (1); we should just make that
an initial condition for defined Public Software. (2) should be
fleshed out though :-).

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Tue May 31 23:17:31 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT