[CAVO] {EXTERNAL} Fwd: Why CAVO recommends GPLv3 for election software

Tue Jul 7 17:54:13 UTC 2015

Thanks for staying in the loop with us , Dana.  The open source community
appreciates your effort toward keeping us up to date.

Best-  Brent

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Dana Debeauvoir <
Dana.Debeauvoir at traviscountytx.gov> wrote:

>  Dear Brent,
>
> At this stage, I am gathering responses from the RFI.   I want to hear
> what contributors have to say first on a variety of important issues.  Not
> ready for an update on your issue at this time.  Thank you for staying in
> touch.
>
> Best, Dana
>
>
>
> *From:* Brent Turner [mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:06 AM
> *To:* Dana Debeauvoir; Dan Wallach; Michael Winn; dlogan at rrcc.lacounty.gov
> *Cc:* Bob Nash; Alec Bash; Tim Mayer; Schwab, James; Brian Fox; Lawrence
> Rosen; Scott.Wiener at sfgov.org; Patrick Masson
> *Subject:* Re: {EXTERNAL} Fwd: [CAVO] Why CAVO recommends GPLv3 for
> election software
>
>
>
> Dear Dana :
>
>
>
> I wanted to check in for any updates regarding your licensing issue. I
> have added Patrick Masson from Open Source Initiative as a cc for your
> convenience.. OSI is currently working with the White House and is a good
> resource  to make sure the government is adhering to open source standards.
> see www.opensource.org
>
>
>
> Please let me know of any progress and how we might assist further.  I
> have still  not heard back from Dean or Jared..  so the L.A. project is
> still an unknown.   Good news- we recently had information sharing with the
> US House of Representatives and they are getting up to speed on the
> standards as well.
>
>
>
> Best again-
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Thank you for responding, Dana.
>
>
>
> Dean Logan in L.A. County has been given this same information..  I have
> cc'd Dean and others here.
>
>
>
> San Francisco is working through these same issues.  The vendors and
> intellectual property community reps are attempting to purport there is no
> clear definition to open source. The open source community recognizes this
> as a ploy toward delaying the adoption of open source as well as what is
> referred to as " open washing " i.e . selling/inserting  a non-open source
> code while calling it open source. Luckily there is now  a large enough
> community standard and enough expertise to thwart these attempts.
>
>
>
> We are speaking with the EAC and others about this work in progress,
> attempting to get them up to speed on the open source technology.  We have
> also reached to Jared Marcotte from Pew, who is one the leads on the L.A.
> project , but like Dean Logan he has not yet responded. This lack of
> response further raises the concerns  of the open source community, as
> conversation and a group approach is part and parcel to the open source
> community's general approach  to  transparency.
>
>
>
> Thanks again for staying in this dialogue. OSI and CAVO are gald to lend
> their experts to your project in hopes we can set the proper standard for
> the rest of the country to follow.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Dana Debeauvoir <
> Dana.Debeauvoir at traviscountytx.gov> wrote:
>
>  Thank you for the info on GPL v3, Brent.
>
> Best, Dana
>
>
>
> *From:* Brent Turner [mailto:turnerbrentm at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:30 PM
> *To:* Eric Bauman; Brigette Hunley; angela lee; Bob Nash; Dana
> Debeauvoir; Fried, Jason (BOS); Ruthee Goldkorn; Dale Ho
> *Subject:* {EXTERNAL} Fwd: [CAVO] Why CAVO recommends GPLv3 for election
> software
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Lawrence Rosen* <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:18 AM
> Subject: [CAVO] Why CAVO recommends GPLv3 for election software
> To: CAVO <cavo at opensource.org>
> Cc: Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
>
> [I wrote this article last November. While I sought then to encourage an
> OSI-approved "FOSS" license, I also specifically recommended GPLv3. Now
> that we have a discussion list, it is appropriate to circulate this
> proposal here for discussion. If we're going to select a specific license
> for our software, we ought to decide that here in our open source
> community. :-)  /Larry]
>
>
>
> ***********************
>
>
>
> There are many ways to distribute software. Valuable software nowadays is
> usually distributed under a free and open source license (FOSS license, in
> short), both because it is usually "free of cost" software but also "free
> of restrictions" on copying, making changes, and redistributing that
> software.
>
>
>
> There are various open source licenses to choose from. They are listed at
> the www.opensource.org website. Unless a license is listed at that
> website, most developers and potential customers won't call it FOSS
> software. The OSET Foundation Public License (OPL), a license recently
> proposed for an election software project, is not a FOSS license. [1]
> <http://static.squarespace.com/static/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf>
>
>
>
> FOSS licenses offer several distinct ways to give software away.
>
>
>
> Choosing among those licenses for software is not an arbitrary game of
> darts. For open source election software that can be trusted and always
> free, the choice of license is particularly important. That is why I
> recommend the General Public License version 3.0 (GPLv3) as the best
> license to use. This article gives several important reasons why.
>
>
>
> ·         Among the many FOSS licenses, GPLv3 is the most modern, widely
> accepted, and best understood license available today. Its predecessor
> license, GPLv2, is historically far and away the most used worldwide; GPLv3
> is replacing it in the rate of license adoption for new FOSS software.
>
>
>
> ·         GPLv3 is a reciprocal license. Once a project or distributor
> releases election software under the GPLv3, it will remain FOSS software in
> perpetuity under the GPLv3 license. Modifications to that FOSS software
> will also be distributed in perpetuity under the GPLv3. This guarantees
> that our election software won't ever be taken under commercial covers and
> turned into proprietary software with unacceptable lock-in and source code
> restrictions that make voting untrustworthy.
>
>
>
> ·         The GPLv3 license promotes open and shared development efforts.
> While it is possible to create excellent open source software under more
> permissive FOSS licenses, those licenses allow commercial fragmentation of
> the software. That isn't appropriate for widely used election software.
>
>
>
> ·         The GPLv3 encourages trustworthy software. There is a law of
> software development named in honor of Linus Torvalds stating that "given
> enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large
> enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be
> characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone." [2]
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus's_Law>  GPLv3 software projects
> invite eyeballs on all distributed versions of the software to identify
> bugs and security issues; other licenses don't always do that.
>
>
>
> ·         Although GPLv3 will specifically encourage FOSS development
> practices for the election code base and its derivative works, that GPLv3
> license is nevertheless compatible with successful commercial software and
> support business as well. One need only refer to the robust Linux ecosystem
> and its contribution to diverse commercial technology worldwide, whose
> basic software is entirely under the GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses. The GPL
> licenses made that possible.
>
>
>
> ·         GPLv3 will encourage innovation because GPLv3 source code is
> open to view and change.
>
>
>
> For these reasons, CAVO recommends that election software be distributed
> under GPLv3. This will inevitably create a diverse, worldwide, and
> enthusiastic community of software developers to create election systems we
> can all trust.
>
>
>
> *Footnotes:*
>
>
>
> [1]
> <http://static.squarespace.com/static/528d46a2e4b059766439fa8b/t/53558db1e4b0191d0dc6912c/1398115761233/OPL_FAQ_Apr14.pdf>
> The OSET Foundation claim on their website that their license is "an open
> source software license" is simply untrue. They can try to make it so by
> submitting their license to www.opensource.org and following OSI's
> published license review process. While I am merely an observer nowadays of
> that license review and approval process, as former general counsel for OSI
> I am confident that certain provisions in that license make it incompatible
> with the GPLv3 despite the assertion on OSET's own website that it is.
>
>
>
> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus's_Law> Wikipedia Entry on
> "Linus's Law"
>
> **Lawrence Rosen is a CAVO member, an attorney and a computer specialist.
> He is founding partner of Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a law firm that specializes
> in intellectual property protection, licensing and business transactions
> for software technology. Larry served for many years as general counsel of
> the non-profit Open Source Initiative (OSI). He currently advises many open
> source companies and non-profit open source projects. Larry's book, **"Open
> Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law**", was
> published by Prentice Hall in 2004. He also taught Open Source Law at
> Stanford Law School. Larry often publishes and speaks around the world on
> open source and intellectual property issues.*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150707/c2066187/attachment.html>