Re: AB 2097 Fact Sheet, first cut

From: Chris Franklin <chris_ovc_at_sunnycampus_dot_com>
Date: Wed Feb 22 2006 - 05:53:47 CST

I totally agree with you as to the real reason vendors won't like this.

 

Simply dropping "proprietary" works for me. That is really the only thing I
thought was problematic. You could replace it with "legal," but I'm not sure
that would add a whole lot.

 

                                                - Chris

 

  _____

From: ovc-discuss-bounces+chris_ovc=sunnycampus.com@listman.sonic.net
[mailto:ovc-discuss-bounces+chris_ovc=sunnycampus.com@listman.sonic.net] On
Behalf Of Ron Crane
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:20 PM
To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] AB 2097 Fact Sheet, first cut

 

Chris Franklin wrote:

A couple of suggestions:
 
Change "vendors publicly to disclose" to "vendors to publicly disclose".
  

I really do dislike splitting infinitives, but since most others disagree, I
suppose I should go along.

 
I would also change "all other proprietary rights to their" to "all
copyrights and licensing rights to their". The reason is that "proprietary"
can sometimes mean protected by secrecy, which is the one method of keeping
something proprietary that they will not be able to use.
  

Enumerating which rights the vendors retain is problematic. I think it's
better simply to drop the word "proprietary", which, come to think of it, is
redundant.

I might also add something like, "The copyrights and licensing protections
will be as strong as any fully published work, such as books, music, and
movies, in which all of the copyrighted work is fully disclosed."
 
  

I'll think about that.

(Ironically, if all of the voting software were disclosed from all of the
voting companies, the voting companies would be MORE protected than now,
because each one would be able to tell if another had secretly stolen their
software!)
  

Indeed. But vendors are unlikely to look at it that way. I don't think
they're concerned about anyone stealing their code or even their trade
secrets, such as they are (how hard is it to solicit and count votes?)
They're concerned about effective scrutiny. And, given their systems'
performance so far, their concern is warranted.

Thanks for the commentary; I had begun to think that this list had died
without posting an obit. If you would, please review my revisions to OVC's
bill. The original bill is here
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2097_bill_20060217_i
ntroduced.html> , and my revisions are attached.

-R

 
                       Hope this helps,
 
                               - Chris
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ovc-discuss-bounces+chris_ovc=sunnycampus.com@listman.sonic.net
[mailto:ovc-discuss-bounces+chris_ovc=sunnycampus.com@listman.sonic.net] On
Behalf Of Ron Crane
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:08 PM
To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] AB 2097 Fact Sheet, first cut
 
Alan Dechert wrote:
  

Bob Reid said "one page." Might need to make it two.
    

Here is a more concise version (364 words v. 395) that should fit on a
single page. It adds the text "or earlier" at the end of the first
paragraph to correspond to the updated bill I posted earlier.
 
Is anyone here going to discuss the bill?
 
-R
 
 
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
 
 
  

 

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Feb 28 23:17:07 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 23:17:08 CST