> Andrew Ho wrote: > >Stage 0 - a. public mailing list with list archive > > b. birth announcement via mailing list (e.g. OpenHealth) or > > web-site > >Stage 1 - a. downloadable code via open-source license > > - b. public acknowledgement that someone else succeeded > > in installing and testing the software > >Stage 2 - public acknowledgement that someone else succeeded > > in using the software in production environment > >Stage 3 - a. more than 3 productions sites (managed by different teams) > > other than the original team > > b. public acknowledgement that more than one team is capable > > of modifying the source code
I agree, this is a good go at a classification or chronology. > >Stage 1: GnuMed, TORCH, FreeB, Res Medicinae, (TkFP)+ TkFP is canonically at least in Stage 2. One more user and it is in stage 3, along with VistA which has rather more users and support authorities... maybe there is a wider variation in stage 3 than a and b, with lots of headroom above the stage of two users. (Like life in the universe, two is the critical point, rather than 4. Waiting until things are widely adopted before reviewing them seems late, particularly if one is thinking of component-swapping and interoperability. -- Dr Adrian Midgley I use Free software because it is better http://www.defoam.net/ They carefully didn't ask.
