Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > > > data model, I might be wrong on this...). Is VistA is free, open source > > software by design, or because of the US consititution (or some other US > > legislation) which mandates that all products of US federal govt depts > > are in the public domain (a very enlightened arrangement indeed)? > > > Free by legislation via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which > essentially applies to most government funded intellectual property.
My point was that VistA didn't get to Version 1.0 by an open source development process, it became open source after it was developed. That's not necessarily bad, and it is probably the most common model, in fact. "Classical" participatory open source development tends to be used more for ongoing development and maintenance than for de novo development. > What I don't know is who was the first organization/individual to > request it be made available via FOIA...perhaps someone can answer this. > We have similar legislation in Canada but I have never seen it put to > such a useful purpose.... Here in Australia, govt depts have commercial interest veto powers, so if there is a remote chance that code could be worth something commercially to the govt, they don't have to release it. Better to avoid the slightly adversarial nature of FOI, I think, and just ask/lobby politely. But at the end of the day, as I public servant I could FOI my own work and then have to write to myself explaining why I am not permitted to see it... Tim C
