<MandatoryWarning> This e-mail contains the opinions and purely subjective ramblings of a hapless eccentric who does not speak for WorldVistA and whose words may be fuel for inflamable minds. </MandatoryWarning>
Don't go with two licenses unless there is a business need (as there is in the GT.M business model). It just unnecessarily complicates things. When it comes to licenses for open source free software (OSFS), there are two broad categories of licenses - viral and non-viral. If you modify and distribute an application built by modifying code that comes with a viral license, the viral license requires you to release the source code for your changes. A non-viral license does not. Of course there are many other variations in OSFS licenses, and there are variations in virality, but to my way of thinking, this is the most important single distinction. For GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux, I chose a viral license several years ago because I felt that if someone wanted to benefit by improving on the work we put into crafting GT.M, they should open source their work as well. I chose the GNU General Public License (GPL) because not just because it is the most popular OSFS license but also because I thought it was the best of those I read. No special provision is needed for organizations that are part of Uncle Sam to use software released under the GPL (Linux, for example, is released under GPL, and just about every nook and cranny of Uncle Sam has a Linux box doing something somewhere). Indeed, the National Security Agency has not merely used software released under GPL (Linux), they have extended it and made their changes available under GPL (http://www.nsa.gov/selinux). I don't know anything about the GPL not being valid in the EU; in fact, there are non-trivial software applications written in the EU that are released under GPL. The ultimate test of a license is comes when it is tested in a court (and judgement rendered, and appealed, etc.). To the best of my knowledge, the GPL has not been tested in court anywhere. Note that there are several orders of magnitude more of FUD spread about the GPL (and other viral licenses) than the length of the GPL itself, which is a very simple document in plain English. Many of those spreading the FUD have a vested interest, and often use emotion charged terms like "commie" and "socialist" just to mask the real issue of their vested interests. But enough said about FUD - I shouldn't get started. In the case of the pedi project, I recommend the GPL. -- Bhaskar On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 15:54, Nancy E. Anthracite wrote: > In keeping with this theme of protecting IP, the pedi project is rapidly > approaching the point where a lot of coding is going to be done. It does not > appear that much of it will be used by the VistA-Office folks, so if it is to > be used only by WorldVistA to add as open source code to the VistA maintained > by WorldVistA, what license should it be placed under to protect the code and > coder from having their code sold and how/where should it be recorded in the > code so that those who might seek to use the code in the future will know > what license it is under? > > Might there need to be two licenses like the Hui project offers? > > Might there need to be some sort of special provision if the code is to be > used by the IHS or maybe even by VistA-Office or the VA? > > I think some of this discussion was starting in Seattle, but I would like to > know how things stand or if this has to be hashed out still and if it does, > it needs to be soon if the Pedi Project is going to move forward and perhaps > we can help the process along by starting some of that discussion right here > on the mailing list. > > I have heard mentioned that the GPL is not recognized in the European Union, > although I doubt any threat to the code will be coming from the European > Union, at least not right away. Does anyone know anything solid about that? *************************************************************************** This electronic mail transmission contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by another person is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** NOTE: Ce courriel est destine exclusivement au(x) destinataire(s) mentionne(s) ci-dessus et peut contenir de l'information privilegiee, confidentielle et/ou dispensee de divulgation aux termes des lois applicables. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, ou s'il ne vous est pas destine, veuillez le mentionner immediatement a l'expediteur et effacer ce courriel. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idU88&alloc_id065&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
