Re: more work to do in NY

From: Brian Behlendorf <brian_at_behlendorf_dot_com>
Date: Wed Nov 14 2007 - 17:43:11 CST

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Alan Dechert wrote:
>> From today's NYS Board of Elections meeting today

Let me see if I get this straight:

1) Election boards object to waivers of certification costs for open source
software (which really means asking election boards to fund such certification
out of their own pockets);

2) Vendors (small and large) object to paying certification costs for open
source software on the premise that, because the software is open source, any
competitor can then copy a certified work and avoid the certification costs in
subsequent rounds.

Then how about this:

1) A vendor who pays the certification costs for a particular open source
voting solution is (initially) the only one allowed to use that software in a

2) If a second vendor appears and wishes to use that same certified software in
a bid, they may do so, after compensating the first vendor for half the costs
of certification, so each vendor has now equally split such costs.

3) If a third vendor appears, they compensate the first and second vendor
sufficiently, so that all three have evenly split the costs. Etc.

This not only addresses the "first mover disadvantage", it also encourages the
first open source vendor to seek out additional vendors to converge on common
software (and probably hardware, since hardware is presumably a part of the
certified solution).


OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:24 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST