Jerry,
That is great news! so the new API will come under the new
legal agreement?
-FT
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> There has been progress. The new API should be showing up any day
> now.
>
> Jerry
>
> On Sep 2, 10:14 am, Fred Trotter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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
> >
>
--
Fred Trotter
http://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
