Todd Smith wrote:
>Hello Bud,
>
>I think that the reason that RMS put up the license page at FSF is to help
>illustrate the problem with other "open-source" licenses. I really do not
>want to start a religious war over OS/licenses/political parties, but the
>more that I read about different licenses the more worried I become.
I haven't yet read the page you refer to (I can barely read my email any
more :-( ). Does it actually mention a problem in using GPL applications
with public domain?
>It has been a hard sell, but some events are starting to open the door to
>large-scale development and use of open-source applications here. However,
>one of the key points that has been hammered into meeting after meeting is
>that the GPL is the tool to encourage contributions of source code. I
>can't, in good conscience have my developers working on code that a
>commercial company can grab next week and turn around and charge for.
GPL doesn't prevent anyone from charging for software.
When VistA (or any other public domain MUMPS) applications can be run on a
GPL runtime, I don't see how anyone can grab them and lock them up in a way
that removes them from Open Source.
>I am
>not saying that they will, but they can and that falls under unacceptable
>risk. I do not want to cause the HardHats to be upset, but they have to
>IMHO change from public domain to GPL.
I don't think that is an option and I don't see how it could be a problem.
VistA is public domain because it is made so by US Government Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). Although someone could make modifications and
release those mods with restrictions, the original will remain available.
---------------------------------------
Jim Self
Manager and Chief Developer
VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis
(http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself)
