[CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation (See Our Draft Statement From Last Night + "?")

Mon Sep 14 19:04:10 UTC 2015

David, I don't think I missed your point.

> I suspect that a lot of this code could show up repurposed in the OSET repository - but with an OSET license attribution put on it instead... the same people are involved in both OSET and the VIP code base...

Once VIP was released (by its author) under a CC license, it can be taken and repurposed in anyone's repository.  OSET's repository. CAVO's repository. The Apple store.

Open source isn't controlled in the way some believe. Nor can its owner remove an open source license he already granted. Nor is one repository intrinsically better than another.

As for the references to VIP being a standard, there are lots of ideas about how an "open standard" is available equally to all. W3C and OASIS both understand that. 

Not CAVO nor OSET nor you nor any other single author of open source elections software can be the sole repository for it. Open source is a community. It is shared software available under lots of FOSS licenses. 

CAVO has suggested that the core election software be under GPLv3. The rest of that FOSS stuff, including standards like VIP, can be under any of a variety of FOSS licenses in any of a number of repositories.

None of this is a justification for a new OSET license.

/Larry

From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david at drrw.info] 
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:26 AM
To: CAVO <cavo at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation (See Our Draft Statement From Last Night + "?")

Larry,

You missed my point. I suspect that a lot of this code could show up repurposed in the OSET repository - but with an OSET license attribution put on it instead... the same people are involved in both OSET and the VIP code base...

David

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation (See Our
Draft Statement From Last Night + "?")
From: "Lawrence Rosen" < <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
Date: Mon, September 14, 2015 1:19 pm
To: "'CAVO'" < <mailto:cavo at opensource.org> cavo at opensource.org>
Cc: Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com>

"The VIP spec, documentation, and all other content in this repository are available under a  <https://github.com/votinginfoproject/vip-specification/blob/vip5/LICENSE.md> Creative Commons-Attribution license, version 4.0. Instructions for proper attribution are available in the  <https://github.com/votinginfoproject/vip-specification/blob/vip5/CREDITS.md> CREDITS file."

This has nothing to do with the OSET license. /Larry 

From: David RR Webber (XML) [ <mailto:david at drrw.info> mailto:david at drrw.info] 
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 6:09 PM
To: CAVO < <mailto:cavo at opensource.org> cavo at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation (See Our Draft Statement From Last Night + "?")

I see they have a lot of code up on the VIP portal - I suspect this is what they are referring too, and maybe some besides.

 <https://github.com/votinginfoproject/vip-specification> https://github.com/votinginfoproject/vip-specification

David

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [CAVO] Fwd: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation (See Our Draft
Statement From Last Night + "?")
From: Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sun, September 13, 2015 5:00 pm
To:  <mailto:cavo at opensource.org> cavo at opensource.org

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: "Meeker, Heather J." < <mailto:hmeeker at omm.com> hmeeker at omm.com> 

Date: 9/13/2015 12:48 PM (GMT-08:00) 

To: License submissions for OSI review < <mailto:license-review at opensource.org> license-review at opensource.org> 

Subject: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation (See Our Draft Statement >From Last Night + "?") 

We have been asked whether our license will apply to a significant and sustained project, and I am writing to answer that question.  (The query from Josh and Richard is reproduced below for reference.)

1. The Foundation's TrustTheVote Project maintains several repositories, some public and some not yet public.   We are in the process of reorganizing our repositories, some of which are on github.  The repositories contain a substantial amount of source code for election administration apps.  Software for voting machine components is still too early in development to be publicly released.

2. A good portion of our Open Source Election Technology Framework ( <http://bit.ly/OSETosetf> bit.ly/OSETosetf) is in various stages of development from early prototyping to production release.  However, not all of the related source is yet in publicly available repositories.

3. The Foundation is currently in discussions with 11 states on adoption and deployment of its largest code distribution -- the Voter Services Portal -- which includes online voter registration and several other capabilities ready for back-end integration with legacy systems.  It is currently in production in the Commonwealth of VA with roll-outs planned in at least two other states, soon to be announced.

4. The Foundation is in discussions with at least one state to adopt portions of its second largest code base, called VoteStream, the Knight Foundation-funded election results reporting platform.  See  <http://votestream.trustthevote.org> votestream.trustthevote.org. 

5. We are not exactly sure of the criteria for “significant”, but the OSET Foundation's CPA recently analyzed all current source code (and all related IP assets) as part of an upcoming audit.  That analysis valued the source code of the Voter Service Portal and VoteStream alone with a "street value" of over half a million dollars.  "Street value" in this context means, "What a government agency would likely pay on the open market at fair market value to develop the same thing."   See this blog post from last July on the topic:  <http://bit.ly/OSETcosting> bit.ly/OSETcosting 

OSET Foundation's blogs (e.g., see:  <http://bit.ly/OSETswup0615> bit.ly/OSETswup0615) contain some discussions and updates.  

 --Heather Meeker

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Fontana < <mailto:fontana at sharpeleven.org> fontana at sharpeleven.org>
Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [License-review] OSET Foundation
To: License submissions for OSI review < <mailto:license-review at opensource.org> license-review at opensource.org>
Cc:  <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> lrosen at rosenlaw.com, "Tzeng, Nigel H." < <mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu> Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>, Gregory Miller < <mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org> gmiller at osetfoundation.org>, Meegan Gregg < <mailto:meegan at osetfoundation.org> meegan at osetfoundation.org>, CAVO < <mailto:cavo at opensource.org> cavo at opensource.org>, Christine Santoro < <mailto:csantoro at osetfoundation.org> csantoro at osetfoundation.org>,  <mailto:legal at osetfoundation.org> legal at osetfoundation.org

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:45:02AM -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Our job is to decide:
[...]
> d) is it going to be used by a significant and sustained project?

I would like to have a better understanding of the answer to this one.
Richard

  _____  

_______________________________________________
CAVO mailing list
 <mailto:CAVO at opensource.org> CAVO at opensource.org
 <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo

  _____  

_______________________________________________
CAVO mailing list
 <mailto:CAVO at opensource.org> CAVO at opensource.org
 <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150914/69bd2689/attachment.html>