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

2015-05-27 Thread 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,

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

2015-05-27 Thread Robin Miller
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org 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.

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

2015-05-27 Thread 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

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

2015-05-27 Thread Jim Jagielski
On May 27, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Patrick Masson mas...@opensource.org 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

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

2015-05-26 Thread 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 grah...@healthintersections.com.au 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

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

2015-05-26 Thread 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

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

2015-05-26 Thread 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:

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

2015-05-26 Thread 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