Openwashing: Booz Allen Public License

[Dan Risacher]

Booz Allen Hamilton has published this text that seems to promote the ideals of open source:

https://www.boozallen.com/expertise/digital-solutions/open-source.html

This page promotes the "Booz Allen Public License" which they seem to promote as the answer for government agencies to use open source without the pesky requirement to publish source code: https://github.com/boozallen/Public-License/blob/master/LICENSE.md  That peskiy requirement generally only applies to the GPL - and not the other 70+ OSI-approved licenses, but no matter.

My initial read of this license is that it is absolutely not an open source license, as defined by the Open Source Initiative.  It literally runs off the rails at the very first criteria of the Open Source Definition.  It's open to Government, Academia and Non-profits, and it's rent-seeking for all others.  I'm inclined to rename this license the Systems-Integrator Rent-Seeking License. 

Have any of y'all run across this before?  Am I being uncharitable in my interpretation?

[Todd Plesco]

That page appears to be an ad for PaaS or hosted platform.  Which part of it is open source?

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Military Open Source Software" Google Group.
To post to this group, send email to mil...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mil-oss?hl=en
 
www.mil-oss.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mil-oss/CAAD1Oe%2B3UyrYW7H%2BmRZdw%2BkPjXgXQMmZ8DovL5gPMFZq1ormKg%40mail.gmail.com.

[David A. Wheeler]

I think you are spot-on. I looked at the license reference listed above, and here's what it says:

> You may not distribute, or allow third parties to access or use, the Product or any Derivative for a fee, unless You first obtain permission from the Originator. If Booz Allen Hamilton, please contact Booz Allen Hamilton

By definition, it's not an open source software license.


--- David A.Wheeler

[John Scott]

Maybe someone should do a pull request ;-p to point that out

-------------------------------------------

John Scott

 240.401.6574

< jms...@gmail.com >

ionchannel.io 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Military Open Source Software" Google Group.
To post to this group, send email to mil...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mil-oss?hl=en

www.mil-oss.org

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Military Open Source Software (Mil-OSS)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mil-oss+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mil-oss/EE535EA6-B282-4BB4-88FF-E84C16770592%40dwheeler.com.

[David A. Wheeler]

On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:03 AM, John Scott <jms...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe someone should do a pull request ;-p to point that out

I posted an issue (not a pull request) here:

https://github.com/boozallen/Public-License/issues/1

Text below.

--- David A. Wheeler

========

Please make it clear that this Booz Allen license is *NOT* an open source software license. The article [open source solutions](https://www.boozallen.com/expertise/digital-solutions/open-source.html) referencing this license uses the term "open source" many times, and a naive reader is likely to be misled that this license is itself *NOT* an open source software license.

But by definition this is *NOT* an open source software license. The license says:

> License. [each Originator grants You a license] for the sole purpose of Your internal business purposes and the provision of services to government, non-profit academic, and other non-profit entities.

...

> Commercial Sales. You may not distribute, or allow third parties to access or use, the Product or any Derivative for a fee, unless You first obtain permission from the Originator.

In short, software under this license can only be used for internal business and by government and non-profits, and it requires a fee for further distribution.

This fails to meet the [Open Source Definition](https://opensource.org/osd), the standard definition for open source software. In particular, it fails:

> 1. Free Redistribution

> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

and

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

It also fails to meet the definition given in the [Federal Source Code Policy: Achieving Efficiency, Transparency, and  Innovation through Reusable and Open Source Software (M-16-21)](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m_16_21.pdf) : "Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone." Since it can't be used or shared by anyone, it can't be open source software.

People are noticing, e.g., see this [mil-oss thread](https://groups.google.com/g/mil-oss/c/JoBTe6pUKz4),

I think it's important to be clear. Thank you!

[David A. Wheeler]

On Oct 9, 2020, at 9:55 AM, David A. Wheeler <dwhe...@dwheeler.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:03 AM, John Scott <jms...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe someone should do a pull request ;-p to point that out

And here’s my pull request:

https://github.com/boozallen/Public-License/pull/2

My goal is to make things clear. If their goal is to maliciously mislead, they of course won’t accept it.

Hopefully this is an issue of failure to understand instead of malice, but either could be true.

--- David A. Wheeler

[Karl Fogel]

On 09 Oct 2020, David A. Wheeler wrote:
>And here’s my pull request:
>https://github.com/boozallen/Public-License/pull/2
>
>My goal is to make things clear. If their goal is to maliciously
>mislead, they of course won’t accept it.
>Hopefully this is an issue of failure to understand instead of
>malice, but either could be true.

Kudos, David. I've chimed in in the issue and the PR, just so there's some supporting noise behind your points.

Best regards,
-Karl