Hello Jim,
RMS points out several problems with licenses, but he moved some of links
around and I can't find the exact URL. I posted the
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#Laws that has a definition for
open-source but it not the page that talks about problems with other
licenses.
From: Jim Self [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>GPL doesn't prevent anyone from charging for software.
True, but it does prevent you preventing access to the source code. I am
not going to ask people to develop software of fix problems to just watch it
disappear into the bowels of a commercial application.
>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.
The problem is the running of the application. If I could get a canned
package that would meet all my needs with no modifications then it would not
be a problem. However, I know that it will have to be patched or modified
in order to work here. In that case, I can do the mods, but they can't be
released to the HardHats but I will release GPL code.
>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.
As I said above, I don't feel right about taking the Hardhats work and
giving nothing in return. Code maintenance against the Hardhats primary
source tree wouldn't be fun either.
Todd Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
