Re: WI to require paper ballot, "fully disclosed" (?) voting systems

["Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>]

I used the language/term from the article and headline.

I agree that it is not the computer professional's definition of  
"open source" (i.e., publicly licensed), however it does appear to  
require that the source be open to public inspection by anyone, which  
must be (in this case) the journalists' definition of "open source"  
and is a big step forward from proprietary closed source systems  
being used elsewhere (like here).

Sorry if I contributed to a misunderstanding about the new WI  
legislation.

Joe



On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:28 PM, Neal McBurnett wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:56:56PM -0700, Joe Pezzillo wrote:
> Thanks again, Joe!
>
> But first note the error in the headline, and this "Subject:"...
>
> http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2585
>
>  Please correct your headline, as it is in error. As the text of the
>  article makes clear, this will NOT require that the voting machine
>  code be open source. It requires only that it be available for
>  audit. Open source refers to software which you are allowed, not only
>  to examine, but to modify and redistribute freely. This is a huge
>  distinction.
>
> To be specific:
>
> http://wistechnology.com/article.php?id=2585
>  ...  But of this bill's provisions, perhaps the more influential in a
>  wider sense is the requirement that municipalities provide source
>  code, and the more general condition that "the coding for the
>  software that is used to operate the system on election day and to
>  tally the votes cast is publicly accessible and may be used to
>  independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the operating
>  and tallying procedures to be employed at any election."
>
>  The bill passed the Assembly 91-4 and the Senate 29-2.
>
> Hurrah!!
>
> Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
> Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60