Golly, Cameron. That's just *brilliant*. So whenever someone wants to know about VistA and IP, we just sing them a chorus or two. That never would have occurred to me, for sure. ;-)
I've been in the business world far too long not to know that if were as simple as you'd apparently like to believe, there'd be no lawyers. My question stands. Or perhaps I should break it in to two questions. 1) Has WorldVistA (or anyone else) already investigated these issues? 2) If so, is there a document somewhere that provides the answers? A simple yes / no response, sans sarcasm, to the first question would be appreciated. Thanks, Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cameron Schlehuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 1:47 PM Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP Great questions and great responses! I'm no lawyer either, but that doesn't mean that truth can't be easily determined. Let's try for some plain and simple examples from everyday life. The poem "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is in the public domain in the same way that VistA is in the public domain. Yet, there are numerous books with that poem that are copyrighted in the traditional manner. It's the entire work that is copyrighted ... the artwork, introductory remarks, perhaps there are variations on the "Little Lamb" theme. Are there parts of the original mixed in with the new parts? Yes. Are there such works with more than one kind of license? Yes. Look at most song books and you'll see a mix of copyrights with different songs and hymns holding different kinds of copyrights (and some with none). Are there more "restrictive" copyrights as well as less? Yes. Can public domain works be more restrictively licensed? Yes. Can anyone other than the original author set new license terms? Yes. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Walton Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP K.S. Bhaskar wrote: /snip/ > In the case of the pedi project, I recommend > the GPL. As I understand the architecture of VistA, new functionality will tend to include / result from modifications to existing code rather than simply additions of new code modules that are completely seperate from the existing code. To the extent that this is true it seems to me that there may be some non-trivial questions that need to be addressed. For example... Is is possible for a single piece of source code to have more than one license? If the code is a mix of FOIA software and new additions, can the additions be licensed at all? For example, "lines 1,2,3 and 7 are FOIA but lines 4,5, and 6 are additions subject to the GPL." I've never heard of a situation like this. Is it possible to release FOIA software under a more restrictive license? In general, all the OSS licenses I'm aware of preclude the licensee from releasing derivative code under a more restrictive license. The licensee must give recipients at least the same rights he was given. FOIA software contains no license restrictions. OSS licenses do. So it would seem that there may be an issue attendant with the re-release of FOIA software under an OSS license. Is it even possible to for anyone other than the original author to set the license terms? I'm not aware of a situation where someone other than the original author(s) has (have) set the license terms. Is there any legal precedent for this? Assuming that FOIA software *can* be re-released by someone other than the original author(s) under an OSS license, what steps have to be taken? In general, for a license to be valid, its terms must be presented and accepted. Most software presents you with a license agreement upon installation. Are there accepted alternatives? Or does this capability have to be built into WorldVistA software? Also, for example, many OSS licenses require the terms to be included in the source code. Anybody sized this effort? Even if the new code (e.g., pedi) is completely seperate from the existing code, if the FOIA portion can't be re-released under an OSS license, is there any precedent in the market for a mixed-license model? I'm no lawyer, but I'd want the answers to these and other questions before I contributed code. If WorldVistA (or anyone else) has already investigated these issues, is there a document somewhere that provides the answers? Thanks, Bill ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8 _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
