Slashdot Mirror
Suit Claims Diebold Voting Machines Violate GPL
An anonymous reader writes "Diebold Inc. and its subsidiary, Premier Election Solutions, is using Ghostscript in its electronic election systems even though Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works,' Artifex claims in court papers filed late last month in US District Court for Northern California. The gs-devel list first brought up the possible GPL violation a year ago."
If not, where would the violation be?
The GPL only applies when you distribute software. They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.
For one of the people who will be running the election hall on election day, when they get delivery of the election machine, is that counted as receiving a copy of the software?
The machine itself is closed and locked down, and most likely cannot be opened without a special key from Diebold.
If that is not the case, hit me with a cluebat.
the voteMcCain models.
The GPL is pretty strict about any distribution requiring source being made available. Embedded devices are no exception.
Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works
In a later statement, Artifex said that they would overlook this violation if all the machines were reconfigured to auto-vote for Obama.
Summation 2
In this case that means every voter can demand diebold's source, which in a Free Society can only be considered a Good Thing.
Changa hates change.
You do know that there are is a filter in your preferences that let you filter by "author".
Learn your preferences. Use them.
Then complain if you can't filter shit out.
Would not want anyone of questionable ethics that would steal or worse help by counting votes. /sarcasm
does it count votes?
Actually, maybe if it was Microsoft Suit Claims Diebold Voting Machines Violate GPL.
There's been a revision: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/voting_machines_elect_one_of
But not half as cheap and simple as using paper and pencil, and having thousands of volunteers counting in parallel. Oh I know, sometimes the electoral ballots are huge in the US, but really, why does it have to be such bloody rigmarole every time there's an election there?
Moron. The machines in question are running win2k. The software they are distributing with their close systems is ghostscript, which is dual licensed. They either have to have the AFPL commercial license for closed distribution, which they do not, or they have to adhere to the GPL, which they are not.
According to the MPAA and RIAA, Diabold are stealing software. The fact their systems are flawed and they fight tooth and nail to avoid any inspection of their voting machines, also adds insult. Now we know why, they are thieving pirates.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but does this story have anything at all to do with political bias, or are you just celebrating election day by trolling?
You have just proven you know absolutely nothing about (1) Diebold's history of fraudulent activities, (2) the requirements of the GPL to make source code available, (3) the complete and utter unwillingness of Diebold to publicly release the source code to their voting machines. Good job. Please refrain from voting or reproducing.
Look, the GPL gives Diebold the explicit right to use that software, so long as they distribute it themselves.
What? The GPL gives them the right to use and modify the software, as long as they don't distribute it. If they distribute it (say, by selling a voting machine that runs a copy of the software) they have to provide the source. They have not provided any source.
all they've done is establish that the free software movement is really free subject to arbitrary whims and conditions.
The conditions are not arbitrary. They are clearly spelled out in the GPL, which is much easier to read and obey than any proprietary license.
At least if they had used Microsoft Windows internally, they would have been free of any political considerations for license compliance.
Read the second link in the blurb. The voting machines in question run Windows 2000. Guess what, GhostScript runs on Windows too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Seriously, why do people still publish under the GPL?
These ridiculous lawsuits scare the crap out of anyone who would want to legitimately use open source software, and they completely go against the idea of freedom.
Every time a lawsuit like this happens, it is a huge setback to the open source community. If someone wants to use your software, you have succeeded. Isn't that enough? Software will never be free until this damned license warfare comes to an end.
As trolls go, this one is far too unsubtle. You need to try harder.
Dear Diebold,
Due to security problems, many states are no longer going to use voting machines sold by by your company. From a warranty standpoint, your product never lived up to our expectation, there for we want our money returned.
American Tax Payer
PS: Don't you also provide Bank ATM's? Should we be concerned about security of these devices too?
It's my understanding that anyone who has "object code" is also entitled to "source code."
This means the owners of the voting machines have standing to sue. If the machines are leased, depending on how the courts determine what distribution means when a lease is involved, the local governments may or may not have standing.
The copyright owner might only have a claim of "license violation" if an owner asked for and was denied the source code.
There's also the whole issue of "how viral is viral." If the printing code is done as an independent program, then Diebold might only be obliged to release it. After all, if I publish a BSD LiveCD that contains some GPL programs, I'm obligated to publish the GPL source but not the source to BSD-licensed code. The same would apply if the PDF-generating code were in a self-contained application in the "rom filesystem" in the firmware.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What am I missing here? How does distributing a GPL program that the sources is freely available for violate the GPL? Is there a concern that they have modified GS in some way and not contributed the changes to GS back to the community? It sounds like people are just wigging out because somebody making money distributed a GPL application in a perfectly legal way. If the issue is that GS has been modified (which I can't tell if it is or not), has anyone inquired to diebold to see if the source to the changed version of GS is available at no additional cost to those who acquire the voting machines? I believe that is the real question here.
Sounds like a lot of jumping to conclusions here.
Based on the totally inadequate summary it seems like there is no violation, except perhaps the minor one of Diebold not having their own ftp site with the normal GPLed gs code available (which they could fix in an hour).
I mean if Diebold didn't modify gs but merely used it on their machines they are only required to distributed the standard gs code. The mere fact that gs runs on the same machine doesn't make the rest of the diebold code a derived work. It's all about what is a derived work of the gs code.
They have not provided any source.
Are they withholding the source to the GPL code?
Read the second link in the blurb. The voting machines in question run Windows 2000. Guess what, GhostScript runs on Windows too.
Well, in that case then, Diebold is even extra stupid and probably should just get sued for that. There's absolute no reason you need ghostscript on a Windows box when GDI is perfectly capable of producing device independent output natively.
This is my sig.
"The routers are mean to be as locked up as a voting machine, but because of the GPL they are forced to distribute the source"
..
No one is forcing Diebold Inc. to use Ghostscript in its electronic election systems
davecb5620@gmail.com
""Diebold Inc. and its subsidiary, Premier Election Solutions, is using Ghostscript in its electronic election systems even though Diebold and PES 'have not been granted a license to modify, copy, or distribute any of Artifex's copyrighted works,'"
Neither have these people This should be interesting to watch.
Based on the totally inadequate summary it seems like there is no violation, except perhaps the minor one of Diebold not having their own ftp site with the normal GPLed gs code available (which they could fix in an hour).
I mean if Diebold didn't modify gs but merely used it on their machines they are only required to distributed the standard gs code. The mere fact that gs runs on the same machine doesn't make the rest of the diebold code a derived work. It's all about what is a derived work of the gs code.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
After RTFA (which does not even mention GPL) and the gs-devel post, it would seem that the lawsuit most likely centers around their in-house "AFPL" which apparently forbids commercial usage (regardless of source availability). One would have to find the actual filing to know for sure.
Actually, if you look at the mail thread linked in the summary, they *ARE* doing this on Windows.
Someone looking at the setup noticed some Ghostscript files being changed so he mailed the gs-devel list asking for ideas.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe under the GPL they only need to show the GhostScript source to the people who bought the machines (that is, whoever takes care of elections in the US, assuming someone does). Unless Diebold really used a non-GPL version of Ghostscript, I don't think the lawsuit is reasonable. And if it is about a the AFPL version of Ghostscript, it's not a GPL issue, obviously.
Apparently elections aren't the only thing they steal.
Yup, the GPL gives Diebold the right to use the software so long as they make the source code available to anyone to whom they distribute the software. The problem is, Diebold has been fighting tooth and nail for a long time now in order to NOT release that source code.
They either need to pay for the non-GPL version of Ghostscript or abide by the restrictions in the license of the free, GPL version.
. . . to everyone. People tend to forget that part of the GPL.
Only to those whom they distribute the software to and who request the source.
Thus, they only have to distribute it to those who request it and whom they have distributed the software to which, in this case, is whomever they sold the hardware to, since they do not distribute the software separately. Since it is a very limited group of organizations that have purchased the hardware, you'll have to get one of them to request the source.
And, if they are somehow "licensing" the machines, and not selling them (which I doubt) then they are not in violation at all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Diebold probably didn't offer the source code or include it, but since they only need to make the offer to the recipients (i.e. the various states that bought the machines), there's really no way of knowing whether they did or didn't make this offer.
Even if Diebold completely and deliberately violated the GPL, without at least some sort of prima facie evidence that Diebold distributed the code without making this offer, a GPL violation would surely be hard to prove, or even provide sufficient evidence for the case not to be dismissed outright.
"'He Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage'"
Every vote needs to count, even people too stupid to know better get to vote.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What? The GPL gives them the right to use and modify the software, as long as they don't distribute it.
Wrong, the GPL does NOT give them the right to use and modify it. They already have the right to use and modify it under normal copyright law, as long as they don't distribute it. I know it sounds like nitpicking, but it's actually a pretty important distinction, because it's important to understand that you have these rights with non-GPL'd software too.
The GPL only gives them additional rights concerning redistribution (including distributing modified versions), subject to certain conditions which they apparently have not met.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
GPL authors generally do not want to put code out there to be used as a no-cost alternative to commercial development libraries and programs, while getting nothing in return.
Basically, the "license fee" for GPL code is that the person/company reselling it must give back changes and/or distribute source. And they must abide by any attribution demands as well.
Or negotiate a commercial use license. MySQL does that.
Are they withholding the source to the GPL code?
Would they be sued if they were?
There's absolute no reason you need ghostscript on a Windows box when GDI is perfectly capable of producing device independent output natively. .mdi is propietary. .ps is open and understood by just about every printer in existance. That's plenty of reason to use ghostscript.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The stakes are very low, and powerful interests really don't care who wins.
Relax!
you had me at #!
Would be cool if you could fill out a form online, and print out a barcode to be scanned at the polling place. Have it so that anyone can check the code online, for the results. not tying a person to the code in question, but allowing for that person to validate themselves.
For those without a computer web accessible computers with printers could be used by people at the polling place. Would be pretty reasonable, and probably cost less than the specialized eVoting hardware.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I like this one better.
They are probably not distributing the software outside their own company.
Considering they *sell* the machines to the government, that most certainly counts as distribution.
So they are obliged to give any modifications to the source code to the government, as that is their customer. No one else has any standing to request it.
And they are only required to give it if asked.
They have to provide the source to the person who bought the machine/software, not you and everyone's dog.
Well your opinion is yours and mine is mine.
DD-wrt and Tomato firmware versions are very useful, giving far greater control over internet access from my IP even traffic shaping certain troublesome Lan IP's. Is there better default router firmware for the home market (or even small business LAN).
There are two cases with the voting machines fraud or no fraud.
If the machines can be shown to be rigged, it will not be shown. It will be top secret.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
See Artifex Software Inc. v. Diebold Inc. et al for details on the suit which has the number 3:2008cv04837.
Today I used a step above and beyond: I used paper and felt-tipped PEN, and filled in the dots next to the people I wanted to vote for. Then I put my vote into a bin, to be optically scanned for an automagical count at 8pm tonight, and then hand-counted at leisure over the next day or so. The optical-scan is the one immediately reported, and the hand-count is the official one.
I really don't understand the problems with voting. How is it that my small town can figure it out, yet it seems that nobody else can?
Limit your voters to a couple of thousand per voting site, give each site a stack of ballots and a box of pens, and an optical scanner. Scan for immediate results, hand-count to double-check the accuracy. This isn't rocket science.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
but can you sue a government company?
Good people go to bed earlier.
So they are obliged to give any modifications to the source code to the government, as that is their customer.
*sigh* No, you're wrong.
This is only true if they're delivering the source and the binaries together.
If they don't include the source, they must include a written offer of the source, and the written offer must be valid for *everybody*, not just their "customer".
Please do a little reading before you make an ass of yourself, this is getting quite tiring.
considering that DieBold no longer exists who are they sueing.
But yes they have no proof so how do they even know that there is a GPL violation
It could be GPL. Is Diebold making the source to Ghostscript, as used in their product, available?
They would have to do that if it's GPL. This would not require them to release source to other software on the disk. There is a difference between aggregation and the creation of a derivative work. A program that just calls Ghostscript to run isn't a derivative work of Ghostscript.
There is a contrary point of view, which is that Diebold is releasing not an aggregation (like a book of short stories) but a complete product. That product is composed of many parts, none of which can be removed without making it incapable of performing its essential functions. The product is therefore "derived from" (in the sense of copyright law) all of its essential parts. If one of those parts is licensed to Diebold under the GPL, then they must license their product to others under the GPL.
That contrary view is not the view that most people take, but I believe it is a reasonable argument under the law.
At least if they had used Microsoft Windows internally, they would have been free of any political considerations for license compliance.
Yeah - go ahead and try to distribute thousands of voting machines containing Windows without a license and see what happens.
If you want to distribute software, you need a license. You might pay money for it, or you might barter in some other way (such as providing source for all modifications to the software).
If anything the GPL grants far more freedom to distribute software than the Windows license does. Under the windows license you can't distribute the software at all without making all kinds of deals with Microsoft (for a pretty penny I'm sure) - the best you could do without cutting a deal is to buy a ton of retail licenses and install them on each machine. You can't even mass-duplicate paid-for windows installs without going through some hoops (OEM agreement, volume license, etc).
Does this mean we can retroactively negate all the votes made on them because they were made illegally???
Let's reiterate this one more time, and again and again until everyone gets it right:
copyright infringement != theft
copyright infringement != piracy
This is true even if the infringers are assholes like Diebold.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
McCain had the honor and integrity and dropped out of the race.
The only gripe left is software patents, which may be null and void soon enough since slashdot doesn't seem to care reporting about it (with my list completely open to every topic.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
would 5 1/4" floppy be a reasonable medium?
That is still vulnerable to permitting people to sell their votes.
Here's what the electronic voting machine at my polling place (Cook County, IL) did:
You walked up, punched in all of your various choices. At the end of the process you had a few screens of bulk confirmations digitally. When you confirmed, it went to a second set of confirmations. In an enclosed case next to the screen was a receipt roll and printer. Page by page, it printed out your votes in plain text for you to review. For example:
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
NO
US PRESIDENT
BARAK OBAMA & JOE BIDEN
These receipts were never provided to you, meaning there was no way for you to verify to an outside party that you voted in any specific ways. However they were presented for your review, and presumably they would be used in any recount.
I've been thinking about this system since then, and it seems pretty solid from a paper trail/verifiability standpoint. Obviously with any digital system there is the issue of the code in the machines itself, machine tampering, etc.
If you obey the GPL by not distributing the licensed code, that means the public can't oversee the vote counting process because it isn't being told how it's done or where.
That's kinda' bad. It's bad almost to the point of letting Diebold appoint which ever president they want, meaning you're not a democracy any longer.
Okay, so you might want to do the same procedure for three independent vendors and use the average. That's like letting Hitler, Mussolini and Franco appoint a president of the USA as long as they agree on who to appoint.
The public MUST have oversight. The public MUST have access to descriptions of how the voting process works, end to end. Reasonable governmental effort SHOULD be put into making the process easy to understand and well-known to most people. The process MUST be simple enough that most people can understand it.
Otherwise, the public as a whole can in no way know that the vote counts bears resemblance to the votes cast.
That is, whoever gets to count the votes is the dictator for life. You have lost democracy. Do you want your civil liberties identified? [yn] _
I don't think this threat is real, right now. But the need to defend against it is still there. You don't put a bullet-proof vest on after the bullet has been fired.
they are the ones that are harmed.
Or should only Michael Bolton be able to sue over his CD's being shared?
No, you're wrong. The offer only has to be passed on with the distribution. The offer itself has to be redistributable (so the recipient can redistribute what they recieved), but nothing in the GPL obliges the distributor to distribute the offer to "everyone".
This is the machine based on Windows and Access, right? Did they outsource the main code to a high school class?
I can believe it though. I worked for a place that bought a specialized Oracle system. You could print your uber-complex reports to dead tree but there was no way to save or share them. Set the place up with "print-to-postscript" and a ghostscript reader.
Did you miss where the parent explicitly wrote - and I quote - "According to the MPAA and RIAA, Diabold are stealing software." deliberately or by accident? The parent equates neither theft nor piracy with copyright infringement.
The parent does, however, point out that the RIAA and MPAA do so.
Perhaps I misunderstood you in that you were in fact perfectly clear with what the parent wrote, including the references to the RIAA and MPAA, and you merely wanted to emphasize the non-equality for those other readers who might not have caught that detail?
I use OpenWRT. It is great. You missed the point. With Linksys, the code in question was a modified version of Linux. That is what got released.
In this case, the code is a probably not modified version of Ghostscript. If it gets released, it won't help anybody.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I rather like the Scantron(tm?)(sp?) system we used this time. You black out a section (i.e., fill in an arrow) on a piece of paper for each vote. You can see what you've done. The votes are fed into an optical scanner, which immediately counts them. Then the paper copies are saved as an audit trail. Simple, fast, elegant, cheap, and easy. And verifiable.
And it was debugged by IBM on high school exams, SATs, PSATs, etc. Years ago.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
So generic is rated -1 offtopic and benschuarmer is marked 5 funny? This place makes no sense.
That's my personal preference as well... I just mean if they were going to change it anyway, I think that being able to bring in a barcode, or set of barcodes would be nice... I think the optical scanners are the best option for at the poles voting myself.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info