[CAVO] SF - LAFCO open source voting draft

Tue May 26 21:37:44 UTC 2015

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 code would be publicly available." This is
        an incomplete definition, the "Open Source Definition" can be
        found here:http://opensource.org/osd  It would be better to
        simply state, "Open source software: A term used to describe
        software carrying an OSI Approved Open Source License." You may
        also want to include in the document a link to the OSI's list of
        approved licenses <http://opensource.org/licenses>. This
        definition would ensure that all of the attributes of the Open
        Source Definition, not just access to the source code, are
        included in the definition.  For example, access to code alone
        does not mean that the code can be modified, or that those
        modifications may be redistributed. By including a reference to
        the OSI's approved licenses, you will also help all those
        involved in reviewing potential software for use in voting
        systems can easily and consistently identify appropriate
        software that is internationally recognized as aligning with the
        Open Source Definition, ensuring the software freedom you seek:
        the permission to use, review, revise, and redistribute. 

        2. Page eight states, "Open source software is classified as a
        GPL; hence all improved versions of the original software must
        remain free, disallowing proprietary companies to adopt the
        software, make changes, and sell it on their own terms."
        Limiting the definition of open source to only software
        distributed with the GPL is incorrect. As stated above, open
        source software is internationally recognized as software
        distributed with any OSI Approved Open Source License, and
        includes permissive licenses
        <http://opensource.org/faq#permissive>. Narrowly defining open
        source as only software carrying a GPL or copyleft license does
        not reflect the open source software movement.

If CAVO is recommending the use of GPL that's their prerogative, the OSI
would just want to be sure it is not implied that we are and we also
want to be sure open source is presented/referenced correctly.

Also, another point came up in our discussions after reading the
proposal which might indicate some confusion, from page 8: "This does
not mean anyone can change the code and immediately publish and
implement it; all rights to the code still belong to the original
creator (in the case that the CCSF adopts its own open source voting
system, the CCSF would own the code), and changes would need to be
approved by the owner before being implemented. Additionally, these
changes would need to be submitted to and approved by the California
Secretary of State’s office."

It would appear this passage is an attempt to assure readers that, just
because the code is accessible and editable, edits would not
automatically be pulled into the production version of the software run
by CCSF. However the passage actually reads (to some of us) as if CCSF
claims to have the ability to control the derivatives of any GPL
licensed voting software it originally developed--which it obviously
could not.

Hope this helps,
Patrick

Tue, 2015-05-26 at 12:26 -0700, Lawrence Rosen 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo

-- 
    ||    |      |  ||||    ||    ||    |  ||||    |||    |    |||      
Patrick Masson
General Manager & Director
Open Source Initiative
855 El Camino Real, Ste 13A, #270
Palo Alto, CA 94301
United States
OSI Phone: (415) 857-5398
Direct Phone: (970) 4MASSON
Skype: massonpj
Em: masson at opensource.org
Ws: www.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150526/d6214f38/attachment.html>