Here are some articles that might help.
Court Evaluates Meaning of "Derivative Work" in an Open Source License.
http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/file/00050/008924
General Public License, Explained
http://www.sitepoint.com/article/public-license-explained
GPL: Viral Infection or Just Your Imagination?
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33968.html
Perhaps someone familiar with how SAIC created the CHCS product could
speak to this? Am I correct in understanding they started with VistA
(DHCP at the time)?
Cameron Schlehuber wrote:
Bill, I meant no sarcasm in my response. I really did think you had some
great questions and responses.
And in thinking further about my responses regarding traditional copyrights,
they really didn't get at the very different twist that GPL introduces if
applied to public domain works, which I think is what you're trying to get
at. That is, can a copyright cause all derivative works to essentially
remain in the public domain? And, is the GPL such a copyright?
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nancy E.
Anthracite
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP [add] and SCO
Knowing Cameron, I would say that although he spoke of it in simple terms,
for
the likes of me, it is not lightly considered and he probably knows as well
as anybody what he is talking about as he, too, has been in the "business" a
while himself, albeit while employed by the US government, but he is very
much a Hardhat and in favor of anything being open that can be.
It may be that getting a definitive answer for this will be impossible if
the
GPL has never faced a court challenge.
However, that may change as I guess good old SCO is planning to do just
that.
http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=11807.
On Saturday 13 November 2004 04:34 pm, Bill Walton wrote:
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
|
