<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.6">
</HEAD>
<BODY LINK="#0563c1">
Larry,<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for pinging us. After a few informal discussions folks on the Board are comfortable with that last sentence.<BR>
<BR>
As you know I sent off a note to Mr. Fried with two other issues: <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
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:<FONT COLOR="#800080"><A HREF="http://opensource.org/osd%C2%A0">http://opensource.org/osd </A></FONT> 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 <<FONT COLOR="#800080"><A HREF="http://opensource.org/licenses">http://opensource.org/licenses</A></FONT>>. 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. <BR>
<BR>
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 <<FONT COLOR="#800080"><A HREF="http://opensource.org/faq#permissive">http://opensource.org/faq#permissive</A></FONT>>. Narrowly defining open source as only software carrying a GPL or copyleft license does not reflect the open source software movement.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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.
<BR>
Hope this helps,<BR>
Patrick
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Tue, 2015-05-26 at 12:26 -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
OSI is now hosting the open source California Association of Voting Officials (CAVO). Thanks OSI!<BR>
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. <BR>
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. <BR>
The final line below (not the actual license recommendation!) is the message that OSI wants to send. Right? <BR>
<BR>
/Larry<BR>
<BR>
*********************<BR>
<BR>
> My understanding is GPLv3 is the CAVO preference from OSI standards..<BR>
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.<BR>
But that doesn't mean that the GPLv3 must be the only open source license used for free software. <BR>
ALL OSI-approved licenses are open source. Other licenses are not.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
CAVO mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:CAVO@opensource.org">CAVO@opensource.org</A>
<A HREF="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
-- <BR>
|| | | |||| || || | |||| ||| | ||| <BR>
Patrick Masson<BR>
General Manager & Director<BR>
Open Source Initiative<BR>
855 El Camino Real, Ste 13A, #270<BR>
Palo Alto, CA 94301<BR>
United States<BR>
OSI Phone: <A HREF="tel:%28415%29%20857-5398">(415) 857-5398</A><BR>
Direct Phone: (970) 4MASSON<BR>
Skype: massonpj<BR>
Em: <A HREF="mailto:masson@opensource.org">masson@opensource.org</A><BR>
Ws: <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/">www.opensource.org</A>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>