Re: Open Source licensing, Take 2

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

David,

>> http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/quickrefchart.xls
>
> 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 arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= 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