<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Arthur--</span><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">No. </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Disclosed code is a ruse. E S & S was busted and fined in CA but I'm sure you don't need that example. This is elementary so I am curious as to your message. </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px"> The OVC ( Alan Dechert ) position has been strictly GPL since at least 2008. I know your association with that group started fading around that time. Brian Fox( first employee of Free Software Foundation / Bash shell creator ) ' did the OVC 2008 Linuxworld demo with GPL-- and Kai Ping Yee followed suit with his GPL based OVC work.. </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">CAVO now recommends -- per Larry Rosen and a host of others.. GPL v3</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">Best-</div><div style="font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style="font-size:12.8px">BT </div><div style="font-size:12.8px"> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Arthur Keller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ark@soe.ucsc.edu" target="_blank">ark@soe.ucsc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div></div><div>No, the key is to have a license where the software is disclosed and people are free to experiment with it. Those were the principles of the OVC Disclosed license we created years ago. </div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Arthur </div><div><br>On Jul 30, 2016, at 1:19 AM, Brent Turner <<a href="mailto:turnerbrentm@gmail.com" target="_blank">turnerbrentm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">All-- My apologies for not realizing Kapor had backed away from his association with OSET. Through the succession of name changes it is hard to track principals. The main thing to recognize here is that even though an " open source " group may technically obtain Open Source Initiative licensing.. OSI recommends the group attempting to peddle services or products under the open source flag should be scrutinized for open source history and their participation with the open source community. A group that does not reach out to the said open source community - is founded by proprietary purveyors- and invents new licenses and licensing schemes is obviously going to raise eyebrows. The open source community is very protective of reputation as it is now understood the proprietary code businessmen are discovering the traction of open source.. and the traction coming available in the election system arena. Obviously there is not only a money grab issue inherent .. but also a power grab issue due to the outflow of elections<div><br></div><div>Groups that do not advocate the ubiquitous General Public License continue to raise hackles (even though we have managed to curtail most efforts to pass through offending aspects of ill conceived license attempts.) Furthermore, misdirection statements such as " The government purchasers say they want a new open source license " are flags as well. The idea is to utilize a license that will encourage participation from the community. <div><br></div><div>Billionaires like Kelly - Kapor and Paul Allen are coming into the space of elections with a fury, but this issue is not simply solved by throwing money toward politicians or large designs. The best design is so simple it's almost evasive. By keeping it simple with GPL and COTS .. the jurisdictions will be economically empowered.. and removed from the current " vendor trap " </div><div><br></div><div>BT </div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Gregory Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gmiller@osetfoundation.org" target="_blank">gmiller@osetfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Apologies folks,<div><br><div>But my Legal Department has me under an obligation whenever this comes up, to clarify that Mitch Kapor is no longer involved with the OSET Institute (Foundation) or its TrustTheVote Project, and has not been since 2011. </div><div><br></div><div>The OSET Institute is funded by several private philanthropists, led by former Facebook general counsel Chris Kelly, the Democracy Fund, and the Knight Foundation. Moreover, we receive no funding whatsoever from Microsoft Corporation nor any commercial vendor of election technology.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Sorry, but I am obligated by agreement to make this clarification due to continued misstatements by others.</div><div>Thank you and respectfully,</div><div>Gregory Miller</div><div>OSET Institute</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Brent Turner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:turnerbrentm@gmail.com" target="_blank">turnerbrentm@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote in relevant part<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>..... we need to watchdog anything that has Microsoft's involvement as it might in fact be an in-road for Mitch Kapor's OSET effort to nuance the open source voting effort-- </div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></div>