In using terms, everyone must be precise. In Crawford's responses he kept mentioning VistA. VistA is the FOIA version of the VA product. Any vendor can take that FOIA version and do anything they wish without concerns about GPL since the VA FOIA VistA is not GPL. So when talking about a GPL version of VistA you are really referring to the version of VA FOIA VistA that WorldVistA (or anyone else) has modified and released under a GPL license (if they choose to do so). I am still confused as to what name goes with what product. There is the HUI version of VistA, there is OpenVistA, there is Medsphere's version of VistA which I thought they called OpenVistA. It would be nice to know with which revision level of VA FOIA VistA is each product compatible. By compatible, I define compatible to mean that if your version of "VistA" is compatible with the Oct 2004 VA FOIA VistA release then ALL VistA patches released up to that time is included in your version. I am not including in the definition of compatible that your version will run with all the "relevant" VA FOIA VistA patches released as of a certain date. For example, if you are keeping you "VistA" up to date with all the VA clinical patches but not, say, the Engineering or Police and Security patches, then your version of "VistA" does not meet my definition of compatible.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Crawford Rainwater" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 9:48 AM Subject: [Hardhats-members] GNU GPL and comments (was: that LONG Pedi thread) > (For reference, I get the Hardhat list in digest form. Pardon any > delays to responding due to this.) > > >From Rick's email... > > >Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Protecting Pedi Project IP [add] and > SCO > >From: "Frederick D. S. Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:37:04 -0800 > > <...snipped...> > > >Several VistA community businesses have expressed passionate concern > >about the GPL, describing it as viral and asserting that it would > >threaten their ability to do business. These are serious concerns, and > >I must discover if they are well-founded. We will not pick a license > >that injures our vendors. > > > > > >On the other hand, it is possible that their concerns are misplaced, > >that the GPL would not interfere with their business strategies. I > >honestly do not know yet and am studying the matter. > > > > I personally think this is a misconception of the GNU GPL and derivative > works from something that is GNU GPL'ed. > > Why you ask? First to get everyone on the same page, here are links to > the GNU GPL and the GNU Lesser GPL (aka Library GPL) so that people can > read them. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html > (Scroll down for GPL and Lesser GPL sections) > > Referencing the Preamble of the GPL, one can see that the original > intent and thought is to allow a GPL'ed piece of work to be modified by > another with certain terms and conditions. These are that the original > author (and other mod author(s)) are noted in the original work, and > that the code is then redistributed under the GPL once again. > > Now for those "other packages", let's take a look at RedHat as a > business model. > > Do they use Linux GPL code? Yes. > Do they charge for support, training, and packaging of RedHat? Yes > Do they charge for a usage license? Yes > > But you might ask, how can they do that with the Linux code being > GPL'ed? > > Well, true, the Linux code is GPL'ed. However, RedHat's individual > software packages, modules, and/or applications (choose your favorite > term) are RedHat's. They do use GPL'ed libraries (Lesser GPL) and > related GPL'ed code, but in the end, the one piece of code that makes > these RedHat parts tick, breathe, work, etc. is RedHat's. > > So what does this mean to for Nancy's Pedi scenario (presumption, VistA > source code that is FOIA'ed is GPL'ed here)? > > Nancy could... > (A) Pull a RedHat (and there are other groups that do similar, RedHat is > the "big one" that most know) and charge a usage fee for her Pedi code. > (B) She could "give it" to the VistA source code under the GPL. > > Pros/cons of both? > (A) Depending on if it is opened or closed source and what was available > to others, collaboration of the code would be a question from folks > outside the "Pedi source code circle". Depends on the usage license > schema in place. Nancy though could make a few bucks here on the side, > again depending on the usage license schema. > (B) The Pedi code could receive collaboration and evolution from others > "outside the circle". > > >One very important question this raises is how exactly a "derivative > >work" should be defined with respect to VistA, given its unusual > >software structure. Until we are clear about that, we are not clear > >about how the GPL would impact the vendors like DSS, Informatix, > >Medsphere, and others who develop and market VistA extensions. This > >specific issue, which based on my reading to date is central to the > >question of whether the GPL would hurt the vendors, has been publicly > >raised to date neither by the vendors likely to be affected nor by the > >VistA-community advocates of the GPL. > > > > See above. A "derivative work" (can we say SCO here?!?) would depend on > what are separate additional packages on top of the original VistA > source code. If it was not separate modules, but enhancements directly > to the VistA source code, I see it being the evolution of the FOIA > work. If it was a separate work, they could do as they please (e.g., > RedHat scenario). > > >However we may feel about the pros and cons of the various open-source > >licenses on their own merits, we dare not take a position as to which > >is the right choice for OpenVistA without understanding this issue. > >For example, we may need to explicitly spell out what is or is not a > >derivative VistA work to ensure the license we choose has only the > >effect we want--VistA is different enough that it may not be reasonable > >for us to expect lawyers and courts to understand how to apply a given > >license to VistA correctly. > > > > I believe Richard Stallman and company took some great thought and time > and effort to achieve the legalese involved with the GPL and related > parts to the GPL. Granted SCO vs. IBM is showing this to be tested > some, but in the end IMHO the GPL will remain solid. The GPL has been > tested in Germany as well, it stood solid there as well, which means > that the rest of the EU will typically follow suit. Summary, the GPL is > currently being tested in the courts and so far...it has stood > relatively solid. > > >Likewise, we need to get real clear about the results we want to see > >from adopting an open-source license. There may be a few individuals > >or organizations in our community for whom the most important part of > >this decision is that we be able to use the phrase "open source" to > >describe our software so we can benefit from the good will or perceived > >cachet of the phrase, but the rest of us have more tangible goals we > >need to achieve and we will not accept any license that improves over > >public domain in name alone. Anyone still of the opinion that public > >domain is adequate for our work should ask for an explanation of why > >most of us oppose releasing it with no protection at all. The question > >of how best to protect the work ties directly to what we are trying to > >achieve, how we want our work used, and how we want our work to > >interact with the work of others. I suspect most of us, vendors and > >nonvendors alike, agree on more than we suspect about the results we > >want to see. Few are interested in passing off the community's work as > >their own. Most just want to be able to pursue their programming > > work--for profit, for charity, or for government purposes--in a way > > that helps the results work together harmoniously. > > Clarification on definitions here for all: > "Open Source" means you can view the source code of a piece of > software. "Closed Source" is the opposite, meaning you typically have > some executable (M$ schema) or binary file (*NIX schema) only. > > I do admit, some people out there (not saying VistA Community, but the > general public) have the common misunderstanding to refer to "Open > Source" as also "free". This "free" is as in "free speech", not "free > beer" (another R. Stallman quote). The Preamble description clarifies > this as well. This again is a BIG common misconception of the Open > Source and in particular the Linux community. > > Personal opinion: > GPL the VistA source code should not effect VistA-Vendors in a harmful > way. If they paid people to contribute to the VistA Source Code, thank > you very much for the contribution to the community. IBM and HP does > this to the Linux source code, as well as to a few Linux distributions > (HP use to contribute before the Compaq-HP merger to Debian Linux and > still does to this day). If VistA-Vendors wish to make their own > separate modules, packages, <insert favorite commonly used term here>, > then the RedHat business model should be reviewed by them for such. > > Sincerely, > > Crawford Rainwater > CEO and President > Linux+, LCP, LPIC-1, RHCT > -- > The Linux ETC Company > P.M.B. 146 > 368 South McCaslin Boulevard > Louisville, CO 80027 USA > +1 (303) 604-2550 (voice) > +1 (866) 604-2550 (toll free within the US) > +1 (303) 664-0036 (fax) > http://www.linux-etc.biz > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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
