Has there been any progress towards the new product specific legal agreement?
-FT On Jul 9, 6:46 pm, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Fred, > > Thanks for your thoughtful post. Needless to say, the "Trusted > Tester" agreement is an agreement that is applicable across Google > products, and is not specific to Health. We are in the process of > streamlining access to the APIs, and are planning on removing the > "Trusted Tester" step and putting up a legal agreement that is product- > specific. We hope that you'll stick around as we work through this > transition. > > Best, > Jerry > > On Jul 9, 1:34 pm, FredTrotter<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have received an invitation to be a "Trusted Tester" which is > > essentially a light weight Non-Disclosure agreement. I have some > > issues with this. > > > To start, it should be noted that I am a technology blogger and > > commenter, I have every intention to compare on my blog, the developer > > interface of Google Health vs. HealthVault. Second it should also be > > noted that I am an advocate of FOSS in healthcare.http://gplmedicine.org > > > With those things in mind: > > > Section 7 of the Trusted Tester Agreement states that I will not > > disclose "the fact that Participant is participating in this Program;" > > > How exactly am I to write about my experiments with your API without > > giving that fact away? > > > Section 7 of the Trusted Tester Agreement states: > > "Participant shall not and shall not attempt to copy, reproduce, > > alter, modify, reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, translate, or > > attempt to discover any prototypes, software, algorithms, or > > underlying ideas which embody Google's Confidential Information; and > > (e) Participant shall not create or attempt to create derivative works > > of or from Google's Confidential Information except as expressly > > described herein and such derivative works may not (x) directly or > > indirectly violate any (1) laws (2) proprietary rights, or (3) > > Google's Software Principles" > > > I remind you that you are not creating another gmail. You are creating > > a Healthcare application. You have broadly defined "Confidential > > Information" to include "the Product itself". I can assure you, given > > the functionality that I have seen within Google Health there is > > absolutely nothing that is included there that is, by itself ,an > > impressive feature. What is impressive is the fact that it is hosted > > in your cloud, connected to gmail, and connected to your various > > search > > functions. In short, what is impressive is that it is Google is doing > > the PHR, not actually the functionality you have. > > > This portion of the agreement specifically prohibits me from creating > > a FOSS implementation of your API, which is something that I am loath > > to agree to. Generally I believe that the "ASP loophole" that allows > > Google to leverage open source software to deliver services is not a > > loophole at all, you have no moral obligation to me to release code > > that merely provides a service to me. At least at the moment I > > consider this compatible with both the spirit and the letter of FOSS. > > > However, the idea that *only you* can provide that service IS contrary > > to the spirit of FOSS. You are asking me to limit what I can develop > > in order to get access to your API. Your limitation could be > > interepreted to imply that I do not have the right to "reproduce" any > > "underlying ideas" in "the Product". How exactly could I contribute to > > the Indivo or Tolven projects (both of whom have PHR functionality > > today that Google Health does not yet offer) with such a broad > > restriction? > > > I am taking a slightly different stance than Stallman, > > (who believes firmly that the code to even video > > games should be released under the GPL). I am making the case that > > Stallmans core argument, that software licenses that restrict liberty > > are immoral, apply to HealthCare software far more clearly than > > anything else. The arguments that I am making here strike at the > > center of the "Don't be Evil" ethos. You want to offer a PHR service? > > fine. You want to restrict FOSS developers from creating an > > alternative FOSS > > implementation of your system? that is evil. You can read more why I > > believe this here. > > >http://www.fredtrotter.com/2007/10/19/healthvault-failing-the-seven-g... > > > In a matter of laughable irony, Microsoft has specifically committed > > to allowing open source alternative implementations of the API to > > HealthVault. They are using their new patent covenant for this > > purpose. Coming from Microsoft this is a pretty amazing stance. Your > > testing agreement stands in especially stark contrast considering > > this. > > > One wonders what "Confidential Information" is actually being > > protected by this agreement? I can already test the frontend as part > > of the public beta, and I can already read the (excellent BTW) > > documentation on the API. I can read the forums as you support your > > community. > > > I am inclined to believe that that the purpose of this document, at > > this stage, may be to ensure that I have agreed to all of the items > > besides number 7. Aside from what I have mentioned above, I have no > > problem with your testing agreement. > > > Microsoft has a similar problem. > > The language that I, and Dr. Peel, have both attacked regarding > > Microsoft's ability to host HealthVault data off-shore is > > "boilerplate". I believe It is there because the HealthVault team does > > not have enough internal pull to get things re-written "just for > > them". > > > Is that the problem here? If I may provide an outside > > perspective: The idea that your relationship with alternative > > implementations for Google Health would be at all similar to > > alternative implementations of gmail or Google Maps is insulting. Your > > CEOs speech at HIMSS talked about how your search engine incidentally > > saved a mans life. But now you are building software where that > > happens centrally, not incidentally. Every decision you make regarding > > "intellectual property" (which strikes us in the FOSS community as > > ironic: most of it is not particularly intellectual, and it works > > nothing like real property) policies have a tremendous moral > > implications. For instance, you have paid to license your drug > > database, but when you extend your service to Africa, you will find > > that the OpenMRS installations, (which will be all over the continent > > by that time) cannot afford to match you. How will they integrate > > medications? > > > I wish that I could just click "accept" and move past this, after all > > I doubt > > anything would ever come of it. I can see how you might feel that I am > > harping, and I often feel the same. Still, every FOSS developer I know > > would have a problem with Section 7. > > > How can we resolve this issue? > > > Obviously given how well this parallels Microsoft's "offshore the > > data" policy issue, this will become the basis for HealthVault vs. > > Google round 2 article. > > > Thanks, > > -FredTrotterhttp://www.fredtrotter.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Health Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/googlehealthdevelopers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
