"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 known to be" or "other licenses may not be" - but you can't outright claim that just because OSI has not approved a license, it's *not* open source Grahame On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Lawrence Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > OSI is now hosting the open source California Association of Voting > Officials (CAVO). Thanks OSI! > > > > There was a question on that email list recently about why CAVO prefers > GPLv3 for voting software. I had recommended GPLv3 to CAVO several months > earlier. Below was my response. > > > > The local government agency officer who asked about CAVO's open source > licensing had been confused by some commercial organizations who are > promoting non-open licenses for their voting and elections software. > > > > The final line below (not the actual license recommendation!) is the > message that OSI wants to send. Right? > > > > /Larry > > > > ********************* > > > My understanding is GPLv3 is the CAVO preference from OSI standards.. > > Yes, for reasons relating to reassurance that all derivative works will be > acceptable for voting around the world. The "strength" and "popularity" of > the GPLv3 make it a good license for universal voting software. > > But that doesn't mean that the GPLv3 must be the only open source license > used for free software. > > ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / [email protected] / +61 411 867 065
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
