Horst, I think what the problem might be ... Yes, Argus was started by some funding from the NT Division. But the amount of work put into Argus has *greatly* exceeded this initial seed funding.
So, now the good people at Argus are making the program free to GPs and specialists. But they do need to recoup some money for their past and continuing efforts which has NOT been met by the past seed funding. To do this, Argus is not making the program free to corporate pathology or radiology practices. How can Argus "sell" their product to pathology and radiology if their latest open source version without registration codes is freely available ? ... They can't. Perhaps you can suggest a way, Horst. But it seems to me that the need for a simple little registration code that you get freely from them if you want to do your own installations and updates is the way to go. You will be horrified to know that I actually let them VPN into my network to install and update the program, and save me the hassle of doing it myself ! - so I haven't had to chase up a registration code. John Mac >Already did the first time the program requested a "registration code". What >an absolute PITA. Complained bitterly on the phone but git the impression >they hadn't got the faintest clue what I was harping about. > >I will not have any software on *my* computers that restricts my freedom, and >forced dependence on some obscure "registration codes" is where the buck >stops for me. Even if you get the code for free just by phoning. > >It is really silly - of course one can fetch the source code, look up the >offending bit, and remove the "registration code" requirement. But it is a >hassle, bound to cause hassle again and again whenever a new version comes >out (thinking of it - source code and current version aren't in sync anyway, >aren't they?) > >I deeply resent the situation. > >A project was seeded with public money. It was meant to become "free". >Currently it is "sort of freeish". Not acceptable. They have to get their act >together - either put their cards onto the table and become upfront >proprietary software, maybe "available at no cost to the end user under >certain circumstances, with some of the source code available depending on >version", or they become true open source software where there is simply zero >tolerance for such bizarre restrictions such as mandatory show >stopping "registration codes" > >In their current stage I feel that I have been taken for a ride, that me and >so many others spent time and energy advocating what we never would support >if we would have guessed what it would become. > >I would be happy if we get a source repository that reflects the current >release, where the software installs from repository following instructions >within the same repository, with no support whatsoever (unless one pays for >it). Then they can release in parallel as many closed or semi-closed >versions, time bombed, "registration code" restricted, whatever, as they >like, packaged for as easy or as difficult installs as they deem necessary > >Horst > _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
