Joseph
Doctor Bones wrote:
Yes, you can argue about licenses from now until Sunday (in fact
today :)
I admit arguing about licenses is a bit like a religious argument.
However, from what Mark says the issue of the license is completely
moot. Because, Vista is NOT opensource. In fact it isn't even really
free. It is a free copy of something closed. And just like you can
make an origami bird from a copy of the bill of rights, if you did such
to the original people would be quite miffed, and rightly so (actually
they would probably be miffed if you did it to a copy too... but not as
miffed).
My main reason for being a proponent of GPL.. even though, as you point out there are issues with it.. Is because it DOES foster a unified development, despite the other issues surrounding it. For instance, how many people/companies have developed Gynecology or Pediatrics or .... modules for vista, and not released them as opensource to the comunity? So the wheel has to be reinvented time and time again.
Who exactly, defines clearly distinct? What does that mean?
Does it need VistA to run?
Yours, mine, and ours... are not really community sentiments.
Oh.. and even, if something is opensourced you can still sell it.
Ah... whatever... (DAMN soapbox broke)
Manolis
P.S. I joined the mailing list, but it doesn't seem like there is too much action lately.
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 17:56 -0500, Maury Pepper wrote:
Drs Kevin & Bones (alias Rosanne Rosanneadanna, alias Emily Litella)
Yes, the line must have been staticky. WorldVistA will definitely be putting an open source license on OpenVistA. Which license it will be is under discussion. GPL has both fans and critics, and in the fine print, it's not exactly clear where the boundaries are that separate what's yours from what's ours when it comes to packages bundled like VistA, written in code like M[UMPS].
Kevin's comment is correct, and that is why it's important to pick a license that will allow add-ons that are clearly distinct from VistA. That said, we also want a license that will foster a strong central repository -- not a fragmented one.
A reminder: comments regarding this topic are welcome on the discussion list vista-open-source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vista-open-source
-maury-
----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Toppenberg To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office
- ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
The understanding I got was that we wanted to allow companies
to be able to develop modules that work with VistA, and have
them be propriatary. Even on Linux, one can make a commercial
program that makes use of open source technology. Kevin Doctor Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at
the moment... and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista
person or
personality..... BUT...
I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it
isn't covered by
the GPL or another license that ensures development
happens in the open.
HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be
going off half
cocked here.... and the connection was bad.... but
from the meeting in
Boston... I remember someone from world vista saying
that they want to
ensure that developers who develop code are not bound
to release it as
open source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we
really appreciate
it. This to me just sounds extremely wrong. You are just
asking for a
fragmented code base... and you are ensuring that NO
major new
developments happen from anyone outside the VA, unless
out of some
personal or corporate guiding principle decide to
release it as open
source. Thank you Sanchez and your new owners.
I can assure you that whatever development I
may/will/probably do will
be opensourced and GPL'd...
Does this mean that I don't want money... NO....
But, this does mean that I don't want money for making
whatever changes
I make to a FREE Software product. I know that no
matter what I do will
not equal the work done by one of the many hero's of
this program (of
which I know many are on this list).... If I were you,
I would be
outraged that other people are taking your code adding
parts to it and
privatizing it. Even, if it is a company that you
yourself work for, or
code that you yourself are adding. You have given us,
and the world a
gift. A gift that has the potential to transform
medical care and
research throughout the world....
PROFIT is important, and for a company the most
important...but, profit
can be made and should be made while ensuring that the
codebase that you
started with grows and matures for all.
Of course, the line was staticky, and I may have
misheard the meeting :P
SO, if that is the case.....
.....
Nevermind
.....
This has been Rosanna Danna Danna
for Manolis
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
.
------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
