On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 12:25 -0400, Dr. Schrom wrote: > I'm not opposed to allowing authors of proprietary software to have free rein > to market their software and support as aggressively as their business ethics > allows. VistA is in the public domain under FOIA, therefore CMS really > shouldn't > have the right to release a derivative of it (i.e. Vista-office) in any way > which restricts "public" access to it. I should have the right to install it > without vendor support. Sure, GPL projects flop, but the GOOD ones survive > largely because of "support" from communities like Hardhats. I haven't met > any of them personally, but there are some really bright people on this list, > and if the can work someone like me through an installation of VistA, I don't > feel that I want or need paid support, and I should not be required to buy it.
No. That is *WHAT* Public Domain means. It means anyone can take anything and do anything with it. Which is why CMS can take VistA, and release a version of it they sell only to doctors with red hair if they want. It is a piece of software under the public domain, they are free to do what they would with it, but *you are too*. No one can force you to buy or pay anything for VistA, as the FOIA is under public domain. But VOE is a totally different beast. I believe the hope on this list is that CMS will release it into the public domain or at least a opensource license, however I am not even sure that has been confirmed. Just because software is given away doesn't make it opensource, or in the public domain. --Todd ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
