Re: San Francisco debate heating up

From: Richard C. Johnson <dick_at_iwwco_dot_com>
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 19:31:22 CST

The focus on "disclosed source" relative to officials of the State of California is, of course, some distance from Open Source. The compromise position put forward is, like the voluntary carbon emission reductions favored by Mr. Bush, not much.

It is, of course, true that Sequoia does not want to provide as Open Source the source code it counts among its proprietary assets at a time it is trying to sell itself for as much money as it can. The alternative is for Sequoia to use existing Open Source code instead of its own software for those of its customers that prefer Open Source. This would mean that Sequoia would benefit from providing services and from selling and supporting hardware to run that source code. It could also keep its own source code secret; it just would not sell that software to the City of San Francisco.

There are many opportunities for Sequoia to compromise in a meaningful way. I am sure that Open Voting Solutions, Inc. would be happy to help Sequoia respond to the needs of its San Francisco customer. The other course is for Sequoia to stonewall and see if San Francisco is serious.

Time is marching on, and ES&S would be happy to take money from SF. Perhaps another solution can be found if Sequoia refuses to make a genuine compromise.

-- Dick

Alan Dechert <> wrote: I just found out about this memo issued last Tuesday by SF Director of
Elections John Arntz.

I plan to deliver a response by Monday or so.

How many outrageous things can you spot in this memo?

You know, this is a process. I'm glad Arntz is putting some thought into

Alan D.

OVC-discuss mailing list

OVC-discuss mailing list

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:25 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST