[CAVO] Please give opinions and clarifying information on these responses

[Patrick Masson]

All,

Here are some comments based on my initial review. I am particularly
concerned with item eleven, OSET's response.

1. Clear Ballot (clearballot.com) is not distributed with an OSI
Approved Open Source License.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150811_RCVBallotDesign.pdf> 
2. International Voting Machines response states: "We are negotiable on
certification and public review of software; not open source"
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150818_IVM.pdf>
3. No documentation of open source claims (GPL3) for Prime III. Claims
of open source license without access to code is meaningless.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150826_PrimeIII.pdf>
4. Statements like, "Designed so that all or part of the system’s
software operates using open source software." and "Everyone Counts is
based on open-source software while maintaining the security of a locked
down system." are antithetical. Upon review, it could not be determined
if the "eLect" software is actually distributed with an OSI Approved
Open Source License.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150827_EC.pdf>
5, The only information provided in response to "Designed so that all or
part of the system’s software operates using open source software." is
"The database used by the Electionware election definition system is
PostgreSQL, a scalable open source database." Obviously this does not
apply to the actual election software.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_ES&S.pdf>
6. I do not know who Alan Dechert is but he sounds like someone CAVO
should reach out to. He seems very committed.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_Dechert.pdf>
7. Digital Foundry's response seems to be a proposal to build a system.
While they seem positively inclined toward open source, they do not
state specifically that the work developed would be assigned an OSI
Approved Open Source License.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_DigitalFoundryResponse.pdf>
8. In response to the RFI's statement, "Designed so that all or part of
the system’s software operates using open source software."
HartInterCivic states, "Yes. Verity is designed to use open source
software." Using open source software (e.g. Linux OS, noSQL DB, etc.) is
not the same as the elections/voting software being released with an OSI
Approved Open Source License.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_Hart.pdf>
9. In response to the RFI's statement, "Designed so that all or part of
the system’s software operates using open source software," Dominion
Voting states, "Dominion’s Democracy Suite is designed so that parts of
the system’s software operates using open source software, such as the
use of Linux for the development of ImageCast optical scan tabulators.
In addition, due to the fa ct that many COTS components form part of the
voting system, additional system components operate on open source
software, such as the Android platform used in conjunction with the
ImageCast X voting terminal." Using open source software (e.g. Linux OS,
Android, etc.) is not the same as the elections/voting software being
released with an OSI Approved Open Source License.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_Dominion.pdf>
10. Galois appears to seek a contract to build a system. They make
several claims, "Our products are all Open Source, customers can
purchase fit-for-purpose versions, and we have a variety of support and
service contracts." "We can provide evidence of these claims by simply
referring evaluators to our Open Source product repositories." Looking
at their prior work / GitHub repositories
(<https://github.com/GaloisInc>), they appear to distribute work under
the BSD license.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_Galois.pdf>
11. OSET has made two claims, that I am leery of: 1. that they have
submitted the OSET Public License (OPL) or some other to the OSI. I am
not aware of any submission for review, but have asked the OSI Board to
confirm. The statement on page 9 that open source licenses "may not work
for procurement regulations" and elections software requires "certain
terms and conditions," seem dubious.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_OSET.pdf>
12. In response to the RFI's statement, "Designed so that all or part of
the system’s software operates using open source software," Clear Ballot
states, "Clear Ballot is built with modern software tools, allowing the
integration of many open source pieces of software in its voting system.
The main programming language is Python and many of the web utilities
come from open source software." Using open source software in the
development of a system (e.g. Python, etc.) is not the same as the
elections/voting software itself being released with an OSI Approved
Open Source License.
<http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/rfi/20150828_ClearBallot.pdf>

Hope this helps,
Patrick


On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 22:56 -0700, Brent Turner wrote:
> http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=4892
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> 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/20150829/26d2a141/attachment.html>