Horst Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:11, Tim Churches wrote: > > > It should, of course. But so far I am not aware of any government > > > funded > > > health software projects that resulted in open source code - > ever. > > > > How about VistA? And then there are all the health informatics > projects > > undertaken by university-based reserachers which have resulted in > open > > source health software - too many to list right now - almost all of > them > > publicly funded in some form or other. > > Sorry, should have read *Australian* government funded ...
What about Febrl (see http://datamining.anu.edu.au/projects/linkage.html ) - joint initial funding by ANU (Australian National University - a public institution) and NSW Department of Health, and now funded by ARC (Australian Research Council, an arm of the Australian governement) and NSW Dept of Health? Febrl is not clinical software, but it is definitely health software. There may be other examples of ARC or NH&MRC (National Health & Medical Research Council) funded research which have resulted in open source software (although I can't think of any off the top of my head). But stay tuned for further open source releases of health software funded by Australian governments in the next little while. Then there is ArgusConnect, who are contractually bound to release their code under an open source license (but some years after the govt funding for the project ceased, they still haven't released any code - but they almost certainly will, eventually - hopefully not too late to miss their window of opportunity in the Australian health software marketplace). Tim C
