"Owning" software; HAVA myths

["lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 21, 2005, at 3:37 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:

> BoCo owns the equipment, and it seems to me politically unrealistic
> to advocate junking it, at least in the next two or three decades.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 Paul Tiger <outreach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in a reply to Ivan C Meek <ivan.meek@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>One thing that we can do is to modify the software ourselves. It is not as
>closed as some of the open source advocates have imagined. We own the
>software and the source. The question is if the county is willing to deal
>directly with the systems and ignore threats from Hart concerning
>non-support, which were not getting anyway.

Boulder County may own the "off-the-shelf" HARDware of the Hart system, but
I find it hard to grasp that anyone still believes that "...We own the
software and the source."  The only software that is "owned" is that which
one writes oneself that doesn't infringe others or is received under no
licensing restrictions WHATSOEVER.  Even open source software is often
available (usually cost-free) only under a  license restriction that
strictly limits what you can do with it, e.g. software under the GNU
licensing system.  Try selling a system named Linux that is not licensed
and approved by Linus Torwald (who "owns" only the trademarked name, NOT
the open-source software) and you will hear from his attorneys.

That part of the Hart system software which was written by Hart-Intercivic
is owned by Hart - it is LICENSED to Boulder County and cannot be modified
in any way without Hart's permission.  What Paul Tiger advocates above -
"to modify the software ourselves" and "deal directly with the systems and
ignore threats from Hart" - is blatantly against Federal copyright and
patent law and Colorado contract law and would cost the county far more in
lawsuits than the $1.5 million already wasted on the massively flawed
system.  

The Hart system software that is not owned by Hart is owned by third
parties that have licensed it to Hart - e.g. Hart cannot modify the
incredibly fault-ridden Microsoft 2003 Server operating system software
with anything but Microsoft-provided patches (flawed as they are constantly
proven to be).  If Hart were willing to negotiate server changes the County
SHOULD want, e.g. fixing the appallingly insecure and incessantly
cracked-into MS security protocols, Hart would be sued immediately by
Microsoft.

Another persistent wrong-headed belief is that HAVA has outlawed ANY
so-called "low-tech" or hand-counting voting system.  All the Feds can
constitutionally do is refuse to subsidize systems not promoted by
Congress.  If the Commissioners hadn't trusted that Federal money would
eventually pay for the Hart system, I doubt they would have flagrantly and
carelessly wasted so much money on such an unexamined, flawed, unverifiable
and potentially fraudulent system.

Lou Puls

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .