> All you would have to do is make the open source community happy would be to > make the version control system your programmers must be using anyway > available read-only "live", instead of maintaining two separate source trees > which only generates extra work for you and can't really serve any purpose if > what you say is right. > > Availability of most recent source code is all we were asking for, plus not > being locked out from participation in message exchange when not yielding to > compulsory registration - the idiosyncracies of your registration code > enforcement etc could then be made irrelevant by those who feel inclined. > > You spent money on lawyers giving you the wrong advice because they don't > understand what it is about, and you ended up with the licensing model we > suggested right from day one after wasting much time and money on > procrastinating. WHY? Isn't it good enough if humble companies like even IBM > use that kind of licensing? > > You will see that the same will happen to source code availability and > registration codes one day - eventually you will have to do it, or Argus will > die. You just won't know it yet, and in the process of procrastinating you > miss out on wonderful opportunities. > > You were very happy to accept the windfall created by our "missionary" work in > favour of Argus, yet you keep snubbing our advice > > Here is my offer: if you release Argus in a proper open source way (that > is, "real time" availability of most recent source code and no compulsory > licensing), and I sign up for a binding 3 years maintenance contract with you > guys at the going rate. Money is NOT the issue for us - you just still don't > realize it. Freedom is.
Hi Horst, I'm not up to speed on the finer points of the Argus licensing arrangements or ArgusConnect history etc so don't want to comment about this side of your email. I did want to raise a few general points for comment though. > All you would have to do is make the open source community happy would be to > make the version control system your programmers must be using anyway > available read-only "live", instead of maintaining two separate source trees > which only generates extra work for you and can't really serve any purpose if > what you say is right. > > Availability of most recent source code is all we were asking for, plus not > being locked out from participation in message exchange when not yielding to > compulsory registration - the idiosyncracies of your registration code > enforcement etc could then be made irrelevant by those who feel inclined. Open source projects that seem to flourish through community input seem to be the ones that have widespread end user appeal that cuts across various industries (Linux, Open Office, VLC, Joomla, FireFox, SANE, etc, etc). While there are thousands of potential doctor end users of secure messaging products in the health sector in Australia (millions world wide, though this is still small compared to the above examples), I wonder how many capable contributors there are currently in Australia (or internationally) to assist with the ongoing development of Argus or any other health related open source projects? With falling IT grad numbers in Australia, I suspect it will get worse before it gets better (if indeed it ever improves given the cheap Indian labour force). As you outline above, you are a full time doctor with your own side projects, family commitments etc and it's completely understandable that you would be unlikely to spare coding time. I suspect many on this list would be in identical situations, but unlike you, I'd hazard a guess that only a few could cut usable code despite their best intentions and interest in IT (myself included). Is this a fair reflection of participants on this list? So my question is, if ArgusConnect did everything you are suggesting RE licensing, where will the programmers come from to take advantage of such changes and assist in driving the product forward? If the answer to the above question is "you're right, there isn't any programmers ready to step up", then I think Ross Davey is correct in directing his limited resources to growing his installed user base, even to the detriment of those enthusiastic about the open source foundations of the project. > Money is NOT the issue for us - you just still don't > realize it. Freedom is. When you say "us", could you please clarify who you are referring to exactly? While users of Argus may benefit (at some point in the future) from it's open source foundation, I don't think enough GPs understand the concept of open source to for a significant number to base purchase decisions around it. They understand time and cost savings and processes that improve patient care which Argus and all the other secure messaging solutions provide, independent of the way they are developed. Look forward to your comments. Back to the cricket! Simon No conflict declared: I'm not currently contracted by any organisation, don't make public recommendations and will sell advertising to anyone :-) -- Simon James Publisher Pulse IT M: 0402 149 859 F: 02 9475 0029 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] W: http://www.pulsemagazine.com.au 3/61A Bream Street Coogee NSW 2034 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
