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
You may have to edit the %ZOSV routine. What you edit depends upon which
version of Cache you are running. In any case, you may trick the Kernel
into believing you have enough licenses. But you may eventually encounter
another message which is generated by Cache with some comment about job
There is nothing preventing anyone from working with VistA as an open
source code base. As far as licensing is concernec, there is an old
saying you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it
drinkwith emphasis on the make. What is more of a challenge is
opening the mindset of those
Several people (as in more than one but less than a billion) have
written to me and said that a big reason that they do not participate,
even though they are interested in VistA is the lack of an open license.
In my previous post I mentioned something about wheels... we should be
flying by now...
Perhaps I am wrong... wait... I know... hard to believe :)
BUT
My point about FOIA's freeness is that it is free, not open.
That is why people take it modify it and make other products from it.
If it where open...it would foster more development. Several people I
know are interested in
Not a big deal, but please consider:
Whenever I come in contact with health care professionals outside of
the VA, and it's seems appropriate, I bring up and explain a little
about OpenVistA. I'll give them the URLs for WorldVistA, Hardhats or
both. Thing is, it's always on some scrap of paper
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think we need to be sure OpenVistA really is
going to continue to belong to WorldVistA first, or replace it with something
that we know will.
I recently bought the url OpenSourceVistA.net for my home server because I,
like you, feel educating people about the
VistA is Public Domain, not Open Source, always has been, always (at least
should) will be.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ignacio
Valdes
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 4:38 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject:
I can understand how new modules (a.k.a packages) built on top of VistA
infrastructure could be licensed under GPL, but I cannot believe that
software obtained via FOIA could simply declared to be open source.
Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 24, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Roy Gaber
Exactly, it couldn't, but the install routines, the additional modules,
the documentation (non-VA) all of that could.
My little attempt at getting greek to work even though it isn't much
more than a hack and a hack explained to me by others could.
And that could aid other Greek or foreign
I should add that we're discussing OpenVistA of course and not FOIA
VistA or any other name to replace OpenVistA as pointed out by Nancy.
Molly
Dr Molly Cheah wrote:
Ignacio,
The games, nay, the discussions started seriously in two other mailing
lists last year, Vista-vendors and
I had a question on the install notes that are posted on Hardhats.
In item #20;
==
20. Repeat the same thing for Routine Mapping for: %RCR, %XU*, %ZIS*,
%ZO*, %ZT*, %ZV*.
It's the process not the license that really mattersPublic Domain
could work just as well as an open source license in providing a
collaborative medium if improvements are made available to others via
public domainbut IMHO it is naive to expect this to happen given the
past 15+ years
Only this:
Trademark web site of OpenVistA
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=docstate=4fule4.2.1
On Sunday 24 April 2005 05:36 pm, Dr Molly Cheah wrote:
Nancy Anthracite wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly, but I think we need to be sure OpenVistA really
is going to continue to belong to
It is correct without the *.
On Sunday 24 April 2005 06:17 pm, Butch Jones wrote:
I had a question on the install notes that are posted on Hardhats.
In item #20;
==
20. Repeat the same thing for Routine Mapping for: %RCR,
Butch;
%RCR is an old routine but only a single routine in the namespace. It is
a routine which accomplishes the MERGE command before the MERGE command was
implemented.
- Original Message -
From: Butch Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Sunday,
All the new instructions were to be is what is there on Hardhats now plus the
changes I suggested you do in the email to the ZU routine. I didn't want to
add it unless you confirmed it worked OK.
It seems that Mark Street found out the ?ZISF routine was missing as I recall,
for his GTM
Did you map the % routines? The error you are receiving is indicating that
the routine %ZOSV is missing.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy
Anthracite
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:34 PM
To: Butch Jones; Hardhats
Subject:
You are absolutely correct, I stand corrected.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Self
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 8:44 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] VistA licensing.
I don't understand
I think there is a distinction being made between varieties of open source. I
don't think anyone is trying to say that public domain isn't open source.
On Sunday 24 April 2005 08:43 pm, Jim Self wrote:
I don't understand why suddenly there is so much repetition on this list of
the mistaken
LMN was honored to have RMS specifically weigh in on the subject of
VistA licensing in November 2000:
http://www.linuxmednews.com/974769856/index_html
He covered just about everything. Excerpt:
I am not a lawyer, but I have spoken extensively with lawyers about
copyright questions. Presuming
1 sale, but 2 shirts! I showed them off at the Boston meeting where Iwegot
the story of the WorldVistA meeting out in Linux Med News before the
Associated Press even considered it! A real Scoop. ;-)
On Sunday 24 April 2005 09:10 pm, Ignacio Valdes wrote:
LMN was honored to have RMS
Greg,
I'm lost. I thought that the input transform code WAS
the screening process. Can you discribe how these two
differ?
Thanks
Kevin
--- Gregory Woodhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is hows Fileman sets screens on pointers.
Rather than edit the
input transform, you should modify the
In other flavors of M you can turn BREAK on and then place breaks in your
code, I am on my windows box right now so I cannot give a more precise
answer, sorry.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin
Toppenberg
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005
The input transform is (usually) generated code. Rather than manually
set the screen in the input transform, you should specify the screen
(e.g., when creating the field) and let Fileman create the input
transform for you. Sometimes you need to create your own input
transform, but most of the
I should add that Fileman allows you to edit the input transform (and
sometimes this is precisely what you need to do), but there's a
downside: once the input transform becomes code that you write, Fileman
is no longer able to maintain it itself. If at a later time, you need
to modify the
I find that the most flexible license is one that doesn't exist - such
as Public Domain.
One of my favorite little programs is a Photoshop like replacement for
Windows called Paint.NET.
The license is:
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person
obtaining a copy of this
27 matches
Mail list logo
