On 10 Nov, 18:49, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:24:55 -0800, dapunka wrote:
> > It seems to me that there is an open source aspect to this. In the
> > article you quote, it says: "Microsoft's proposed change to state law
> > would effectively render our current requirements for ... the ability
> > for independent review of source code in the event of disputes
> > completely meaningless." That suggests to me that Microsoft do not
> > want source code to be reviewed in the event of disputes - they want
> > the source to be closed.
>
> It "seems" to you, but you're wrong. That's the whole purpose of escrow,
> to allow source to stay closed but allow independent review. Escrow
> doesn't mean Microsoft has to open source their code.
Yes, I'm wrong. Had to happen eventually. LOL.
> > And anyway, why the hell is Microsoft proposing the law change? I'd
> > have thought voting system law is there to serve the interests of the
> > voters, not the manufacturers of voting systems.
>
> They're proposing the change because they believe that they shouldn't have
> to be forced to submit to examination of their code just because somebody
> chooses their software to make a voting machine.
>
> I think most people who consider their products to be trade secrets would
> feel the same way.
They shouldn't be trying to change the law. They should just refuse
to allow their software to be used for this sensitive job. The voting
process needs to be transparent. As you pointed out to me, escrow
doesn't require Microsoft to open their source. If they don't trust
the escrow process and the independent examiners, they can refuse the
electoral authority a software license.
|
|
