[CAVO] [VVSG-interoperability] [VVSG-election] Single Point of Failure - the Scan Head - RE: By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines
turnerbrentm at gmail.com
Sat Jul 30 19:47:06 UTC 2016
As you are relatively new to the election reform space-- and I don't know
you-- let me preface the conversation with some harsh truth for you. I am
not, nor are my associated groups ( specifically CAVO) , VENDORS. CAVO is
a 501 ( c ) 6 public benefit corp created to facilitate the pooling of
jurisdiction resources and to provide education regarding open source
I started the SF effort in 2004 and later created the SF Voting Systems
Task Force. The work then was GPL - as the work now is GPL. The OVC
Linuxworld demo of 2008 was GPL see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8CSKdMTARY The OVC " Dechert Design '
was originally released in 2004-- FYI
If you have an issue with GPL.. or specifically GPL v3 , I would suggest
you hash that out with other licensing experts. Admittedly I am not an
expert on this particular point, but rather a communications fellow and
activist. I believe Lawrence Rosen may have time to educate you.. but that
is up to him as he works pro bono as well. Here is a prime example from
last year. Here is the audio from the NOV 2015 SF Elections Commission
Our associate, Dr. Juan Gilbert, had brought this up at the previous
Commission meeting: NH is starting to use his Prime 3 system. Before he
joined up with CAVO, Prime 3 was not GPL. I urged Gilbert to go with GPL.
However, he had already released his code to NH.
Problem: it's not shareable because it wasn't GPL at the time he gave it to
The discussion goes from about 30:50 to about 41:20 in the recording.
32:50 -- modifications not available (Jerdonek).
36:45 -- question about sharing modifications
38:30 -- are they happy to share it? (commissioner)
40:00 -- only concerned for making it work for themselves (Jerdonek)
Furthermore, all members of CAVO are good hearted supporters of our
mission. If you know of someone that is not please apprise. Your
McCarthy-esque innuendo does not hold water or influence. Allegations that
CAVO directors and/or advisory board members are not real are simply
ridiculous. : You are lying. The board of CAVO are " do-gooders " that have
worked , many since 2000, pro bono at great personal burden to themselves.
We are self funded.. and beholden to no one. Brian Newby ( EAC )- Dr
Juan Gilbert ( UOF ) Brian Fox ( FSF ) Lawrence Rosen and many other
esteemed CAVO board members can attest to our pioneering efforts.
it is my studied opinion that a candid, truthful assessment of the
community from an internal affairs perspective is valuable toward future
decision making. When people that are proprietary shills attempt to color
the the voting system arena it must be noted. Thanks for assisting that
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Joe Kiniry <kiniry at freeandfair.us> wrote:
> It is clear that you do not understand Open Source licensing, despite your
> trolling on the topic for years.
> Your implicit claims that San Francisco has both chosen GPL as a license
> and somehow chosen your pseudo-organization as a vendor are an invention.
> Finally, your public behavior and continued slandering of OSET and similar
> organizations bears witness to this community of your nature. I hope that those
> listed as being associated with CAVO <http://www.cavo-us.org/staff.html>—as
> I know in the past that individuals listed on your website were unaware and
> disavowed any connection to CAVO—realize the potential impact to their
> Now let’s get back to discussing substantial issues with future
> certification of election systems.
> Joe Kiniry
> On Jul 30, 2016, at 09:38, Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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..
> CAVO now recommends -- per Larry Rosen and a host of others.. GPL v3
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Arthur Keller <ark at soe.ucsc.edu> wrote:
>> 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.
>> Best regards,
>> On Jul 30, 2016, at 1:19 AM, Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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 "
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Gregory Miller <
>> gmiller at osetfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Apologies folks,
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> Sorry, but I am obligated by agreement to make this clarification due to
>>> continued misstatements by others.
>>> Thank you and respectfully,
>>> Gregory Miller
>>> OSET Institute
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Brent Turner <turnerbrentm at gmail.com>
>>> wrote in relevant part
>>>> ..... 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--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CAVO