Re: "Owning" software; HAVA myths

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My impression of the Hart software is that it is badly designed from
the initial conception. Getting hold of a copy and modifying it to
make it do reasonable things would be very difficult and a waste of
programmer talent. But it might be a plausible cover story for doing a
new implementation that works. Except, as you say, Hart owns it and
probably would not let us do it legally. 

This is an example of a issue in law that has badly burnt several
government research labs. They bought highly specialized computers for
scientific studies. With the computers came an operating system
(software). The company goes bankrupt because there is no lasting
demand for specialized scientific computers, and suddenly the
government computer becomes worthless because no one can maintain the
operating system legally. And, surprise, government research labs
don't break the law. Other gov't agencies can get Presidential
Findings, but not scientists. Likewise, County Clerks seldom try to
break the law, for good reason.  So, its not even a useful cover story.

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 02:20:05PM -0400, lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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/ .
> 
> 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx