Hello Mark,
It seems from the tone of your message, perhaps you do not approve of the
current thread? I am just seeking some understanding of IMHO some serious
issues that may cause problems for my organization.
>From: Mark Sires [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>The points as I understand them:
>1. Vista and GT.M are two different products. Vista does not need GT.M
>specifically to run, and GT.M does not need Vista to run.
Yes, this is very true. However, a GPL MUMPS engine is still lacking
availability. There have been several teams working on it from different
angles, but a production quality engine hasn't been released yet. GT.M is
the first MUMPS engine that I know of that may qualify for production
quality and also GPL. I don't know of any open-source medical applications
written specially for GT.M. The combination of GPL MUMPS engine and
possibly GPL Vista is very exciting and worth exploring.
>2. Vista is, in it's current state, a public domain set of code. It has no
>restriction on it's use or reuse. Anyone can and will for the near future,
>get the code as provided under the FOIA release from the VA regardless of
>what Hardhats or anyone else chooses to do, including using it in closed
>source, commercially available software. This is and will continue to be
>one of it's greatest strengths. No one, including the current open source
>religion of the day, can decide what anyone else does with it.
That is the current problem. If I choose to get the code and re-release
under GPL, and a commercial company wishes to use sections that I modified
and refuses to honor the GPL, then it is litigation time. Plus any sections
that I fix or improve are not available to be re-released under FOIA. I
don't want to fork the code, but that might have to happen in order to use
and improve the application suite.
>3. Therefore, there is no restriction for someone who creates a modified
>version of Vista from releasing the modified version of Vista under GPL or
>any other license. That does not change the rights of anyone else to start
>with the base FOIA Vista and release a different modified version
>commercially, nor should it. It would prevent someone from taking your
>modified sections and using them commercially in a closed source system,
>which is an appropriate if that is what the you, the person(s) who made the
>modifications, desired.
Once again, you are correct. However, that is forking the code base and you
have better have a very strong and convincing argument with yourself and the
maintainers as well as the userbase before you do it. Linus and Alan Cox
and others take forking the Linux kernel very seriously and most open-source
projects leaders do as well. If forking is the only answer, then it must be
approached in as slow and careful as possible so that all parties understand
that it is the only option left.
>4. If GPL cannot accept a software with a less restrictive license than
>itself, then this is a serious flaw in GPL in my opinion, and I will have
to
>reconsider whether any development I do will ever use GPL software or be
>released under GPL. My goal in pursuing open source is to remove
>restrictions, no create them.
I really can't answer this one other then to politely ask you to look at RMS
page http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#Laws The FSF popularized
the concept of the "open-source" software and a more precise definition is
available there. Maybe that will address your concerns.
I really haven't added in value to anything lately. I want to try to add
value to many things, but I want to have the people that I playing with to
have the same rules. If you don't want to play with me, that okay. If you
do, then we should have the same sets of rules to work from. If you can
steal me blind, but I don't have that option then there is a problem.
Todd Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
