Re: Open Source licensing, Take 2

From: Alan Dechert <dechert_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 10 2005 - 14:28:52 CDT


> 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.
I think we want something more like BSD than GPL. RAND for copying and
distribution, and not viral. I doubt that a viral license will work for us
since election law is changing and legislators are just beginning to think
about open source election software.

Alan D.

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