I don't think that follows. Being available through FOIA doesn't imply a GPL style license.
--- "Dr. Schrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > Mike > === Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Without the requirement of mathematical aesthetics a great many discoveries would not have been made." -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------------------------------- 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
