"Smith, Todd" wrote:
> 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]>
As I understand it, you don't want your modifications to the VISTA code base to
become incorporated into non-libre software. Therefore, you refuse to
contribute any code that is not covered by the GPL. However, since the
Hardhats can't use GPL code, they would not be able to use your code, which you
feel bad about.
I don't see how you can avoid forking the code, unless Vista is modular enough
that your contributions can be separated sufficiently from the rest of the
code base to satisfy the terms of the GPL. However, I wouldn't feel badly
about giving nothing in return to the HardHats. They know that the code they
generate can be used by anybody, including companies that make it completely
non-libre, let alone GPL. If they didn't find that possibility acceptable,
they wouldn't have worked on the code to begin with. In any case, you will be
helping them, by extending the developer base familiar with Vista, extending
the user base, and eventually helping patients, which is what they presumably
wanted when they wrote the code.
That said, you may wish to reconsider a rigid insistence on the use of the
GPL. A lot of popular, useful libre software is covered by less restrictive
licenses than the GPL--FreeBSD, Apache, Perl, PostgreSQL. While it's true that
the code from these libre projects has been incorporated into non-libre
software (for example, I believe the non-libre Illustra database is decended
from the same code base as PostgreSQL), there is still a robust libre developer
community that will see to it that most of the code for those projects is
freely available for the forseeable future. I also don't see a big problem
about running a public domain application on top of a GPL-licensed engine (or
vice versa). For example, the OpenACS is GPL-ed and runs on top of the
BSD-licensed PostgreSQL database.
Chris
