Re: evmpl license

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Wed Sep 10 2003 - 15:59:27 CDT

On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 12:28 PM, David Mertz wrote:

> I think we should narrow Clay's proposed clause slightly. Specifically,
> "voting purposes" is probably broader than we need. For example, some
> interested people off-list have asked whether our software would be
> usable for a school election, or neighborhood association election (Yes,
> obviously). In those cases, the strict audit requirements don't come
> into play.

Good point. Also, suppose someone uses our software as a basis for
a fraudomatic demonstration. Just as it may not be appropriate to
require that those who demonstrate potential virus attacks make their
code public, those who demonstrate potential attacks on the voting
system may want to refrain from giving away those tools.

> We probably get closer to the intended effect by making the clause
> "Using the software for GOVERNMENTAL voting purposes...". But maybe a
> different modifier is better.

But you don't want NSA employees who, as part of their job, do security
research on voting systems, to be forced to release their experimental
fraudomatic.

The phrase "elections for public office or votes on public measures"
is the best I can come up with right now, but what if someone uses this
software to run union elections or elections for corporate shareholders?
Suggestions anyone?
                                Doug Jones
                                jones@cs.uiowa.edu
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Sep 30 23:17:02 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 23:17:09 CDT