Re: "Owning" software; HAVA myths

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, Paul, do you dare post a copy of a public document for the rest of us to
read? If you post the contract with Hart, the real one, I will read it. Did
you have to sign a confidentiality agreement to get your copy? Is such an
agreement morally or legally binding, given that it is a public document?
You might be fired by the County? But you're not an employee. Does the 
County have a black helicopter division?

Paul C

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 02:51:38PM -0600, Paul Tiger - LPBC - Outreach wrote:
> Can't modify the OS. MS OS is licensed.
> 
> Before you (or anyone here) goes off in nine different directions with false
> and un-researched ASSUMPTIONS about the Hart software, it might be wise to
> read the contract between Hart and the county. I'm the only person in CVV
> that has. I don't mean the marketing crapola or the proposed contract
> published in two places on the internet, but real McCoy.
> 
> Wanna know something hilarious? Hart thinks that they must keep that
> contract a secret. The county clerk thinks that she must also. Hallo - paid
> for by public funds and keep it a secret? Bet not!
> 
> It took quite a bit of time to get the clerk to produce the contract. And I
> heard about its proprietary nature all along. Wanna have some fun? Demand an
> open records release to the contract.
> 
> Read it carefully and set it down every few minutes so you can run around in
> your yard and SCREAM. Boulder county taxpayers have been screwed. But Hart
> was just a party to the bizarre sex. BC elected official were too.
> 
> Hand counting is perfectly legal. I haven't read anywhere that hand counting
> is illegal. It just takes forever. I hardly care, as long as it is accurate.
> I haven't heard any comments to the effect that hand counting is illegal.
> Why do we keep going back to this topic?
> 
> Pay close attention to these words: when there is a demand for a RECOUNT in
> any election, it must be recounted in the same method that it was originally
> counted. End of Story.
> 
> paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:20 PM
> To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: "Owning" software; HAVA myths
> 
> 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/ .
> 
> 
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 04/21/2005
> 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx