Further to Thomas's posting....I dug up the results of the vote we had for the OSHCA name and license preference in December and GPL had won hands down. My feeling is that the GPL license will stand the test of time and be the most widely adopted license in OSS because of its simplicity. When a funding solution is coupled to the license it makes it difficult to manage, enforce.....in fact it is not any different than royalty based software. My motivation for simplicity comes from my business development / incubation experience and from living through nearly 6 years of regular neutron bomb attacks at DEC. It is easier not to add in the first place, than to add then delete later. Joseph Dal Molin 416.232.1206 Office 416.818.9156 Cellular www.openhealth.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Beale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "OSHA list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:35 AM Subject: Open Source licences > In the light of recent discussions and announcements, it occurs to me > that this group might consider one of its "jobs" the specification of an > open source licence suitable for health care products (or maybe more > than one, for different categories of product). Aspects to consider > include: > > - $0 use for academia > > - $0/very cheap use for developing world (no, it's not evil to ask for > money from the developing world. Governments will willingly pay > reasonable amounts to fund development of software which can then be > used in the whole country. Development of language- and culture-specific > functionality might need this. Also, the World Bank funds such work, if > you can get the money from them) > > - $0 in the developed world? Or see below... > > - how to pay for support > > My personal feeling is that the "freely available source" part of the > licence crucial; whether the product also costs nothing is another > matter. I feel strongly that "open source extremism" damages the intent > of the movement as a whole, and a balanced approach is needed to find > means of funding, not a denial that any money can be accepted for work. > > One model we have been thinking about is to charge nothing for the GEHR > kernel software, but ask users (i.e. GP clinics and hospitals) to pay a > tiny fee per patient record created, in their own currency, to help > support ongoing development. So a large Indian hospital will be a source > of some rupees, which won't pay for anyone in Australia, but could > certainly help some local developers going. I.e. they won't be crippled > by having to pay in AUD or USD, but will instead generate income to be > used by local people. Just an idea. One of the reasons for doing this by > the way in GEHR at least is to pay for administration of the archetype > system globally. > > A new idea I have seen is called the "Street performer", which is a > variation of open source ideas. See > http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/index.html. > > Any takers? > > - thomas beale > > -- > .............................................................. > Deep Thought Informatics Pty Ltd > Information and Knowledge Systems Engineering > phone: +61 7 5439 9405 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.gehr.org > http://www.elj.com/eiffel/ebs > .............................................................. > > > >
Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > > I was going to vote for GPL anyways........so that will make it 101% > Well, somebody 'snuck' in a BSD on us! > > -------------------------------------- > > Tim Cook, Coordinator FreePM Project > > http://www.freepm.org > > Open Source for a Free World > > --------------------------------------- > >
