Re: Re: Small Linux platforms-bidding on real RFPs

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Tue Jul 19 2005 - 20:45:48 CDT

I'm just zeroing in on the phrase "completely open technology".

If I'm using a freeware component, not developed by OVC, but
is completely extensible, configurable and scriptable with XML
and certified by the government for use in government
applications - and I happen to also be marrying that to the
OVC produced components thru a simple binding, is that
open enough....

Just what flavours of "open" are being permitted here?

DW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@ieee.org>
To: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>; <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Re: Small Linux platforms-bidding on real RFPs

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Webber (XML) wrote:
> > Nathan,
> >
> > If everything connects thru bindings and neutral
> > APIs it allows implementers to integrate into their
> > own environment.
> >
> > I believe while you want a reference implementation
> > that is non-proprietary - you cannot exclude people
> > integrating your components into their solution -
> > especially if you offer an OSI license.
>
> As long as they follow the letter of the licence (GPLv2 for example),
> they are more than welcome to use the 'components'.
>
> > In fact you postively *want* to encourage as broad
> > an adoption as possible.
>
> Of course we want broad adoption... of a completely open system.
>
> > That's the basis I see - that you have a core foundation,
> > but that is non-exclusive.
>
> The OVC is exclusive to open source solutions because the voting public
> deserves better than a closed source black box. *That* is the basis.
>
> > Otherwise there is an issue - the OVC can potentially
> > fall foul of exactly the same pitfall that vendors are -
> > where they want to own the solution space to the
> > exclusion of everyone else.
>
> So now you're suggesting that F/OSS excludes others from participating?
> Silly.
>
> > Therefore to avoid this - you want to encourage people
> > to adopt as much from the OVC approach as practical
> > but stopping short of mandating OVC to the exclusion
> > of everything else.
>
> No, I want the voting technology to be completely open. Period.
> Otherwise it is not trustworthy. Period. I don't care if that happens to
> fit in well with a particular companies' current business model. This
> isn't a business venture; we're here to secure the voting process.
> Clever business people will figure out how to profit with a completely
> open technology, but that is *not* the prime objective here.
>
> Nathan
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFC3aye2QTTR4CNEQARAoXjAJ9ahxidHV2l1/W9cXkEuQb5K0ox+wCdEB9g
> rXp1NVK8hHMFTvErCWDx864=
> =R8E2
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Sun Jul 31 23:17:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT