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

Meeker, Heather J. hmeeker at omm.com
Sun Sep 13 19:48:26 UTC 2015

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 (bit.ly/OSETosetf<http://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 votestream.trustthevote.org<http://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: bit.ly/OSETcosting<http://bit.ly/OSETcosting>

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

 --Heather Meeker
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org<mailto: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 <license-review at opensource.org<mailto:license-review at opensource.org>>
Cc: lrosen at rosenlaw.com<mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>, "Tzeng, Nigel H." <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu<mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>>, Gregory Miller <gmiller at osetfoundation.org<mailto:gmiller at osetfoundation.org>>, Meegan Gregg <meegan at osetfoundation.org<mailto:meegan at osetfoundation.org>>, CAVO <cavo at opensource.org<mailto:cavo at opensource.org>>, Christine Santoro <csantoro at osetfoundation.org<mailto:csantoro at osetfoundation.org>>, legal at osetfoundation.org<mailto: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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150913/06ffc236/attachment.html>

More information about the License-review mailing list