Re: FreeMedForms projet

[Eric Maeker]

Hi

I'm really sorry, but I can not answer to everyone and all your questions.
I feel a bit flooded.

What I can say is that we are working (in real life, I alone, because I'm
the only one to manage Debian in the project, we have macist only...) to
finish the code of 1.1.0 and release it like we always do : source packaged
and freely available, bins ok, tests ok. No buggy soft, no untested
features. Now that doctors use our soft and put all patient data in it, we
can not deliver a buggy software and we must test update from older version
before any release. This means time...

About the website and the DFSG compliance, please consider that the website
translations are out of sync. FreeMedForms integrates now one extra content
: code128.ttf, that is not clearly licenced (
https://grandzebu.net/informatique/codbar/code128.ttf /
https://www.dafont.com/fr/code-128.font). This is required for all user who
wants to print bar codes (see
https://freemedforms.com/fr/news/versions/110#codes_barres)... This is why
the package is mentioned "not 100% DSFG compatible". But may be we made an
error (that anyone can correct) ?

All other extra-non-free content are only downloadable from our server
datapack (directly from the application) and users are well informed of all
licence and missing features (DDI management mainly). This choice goes
beyond the question of licenses since it also implies from managers of the
project medical and scientific responsibilities. This is also why we can
not accept that forks tries to download and install our private data.

We noticed that Popcon says:
*freemedforms-freedata* 62
While
*freemedforms-emr* 30
We understand that people are more interested by our data than by our
complete solution. This is not exactly what we thought at the start of the
project. Whatever, the project goes on!

I hope I made our choices clearer... You can consider that our engagement
in free software and specially in debian is still the same since 2008.

Belle journée
Cordialement


<http://maeker.fr> *Dr Maeker Éric*

*Gériatre, psychogériatre*
eric.mae...@gmail.com
Twitter  @DrMaeker <https://www.twitter.com/drmaeker>
RPPS 10002307964

maeker.fr  Site personnel
empathies.fr  Association Emp@thies
freemedforms.com  Logiciel médical

La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël


Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 02:15, Paul Wise  a écrit :

> On Fri, 2020-01-10 at 17:34 +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
>
> > We know that at least two forks exists (this is what our private data
> > server's log tells us). We do not receive any patch, invitation to
> > git repos, or any kind of official informations or queries.
>
> Having multiple forks and having folks not bother to send feedback is
> normal in Free Software, especially for software that uses github.
> There was a blog post about this recently but I'm unable to find it. I
> would not worry about there being forks available, instead focus on the
> feedback that you do get and try to build a community around the code.
>
> > we decide that our git repository will not be freely accessible.
>
> I encourage you to consider changing back to an open repository; as
> Andreas has pointed out, this is already affecting other potential
> contributors and affecting potential redistribution of your software.
>
> > Approval does only concern ... the ability to join the project as
> > member (coder, tester, communication manager...).
>
> This is normally how things work, you build up trust through your
> contributions to a project and then they invite you to join.
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
>

Re: FreeMedForms projet

[Eric Maeker]

Oh! There is a misunderstanding here!
Let me correct my words:
-> full code of each stable released version is packaged and freely
available (but undocumented since v1.0.0).

Code is considered 100% stable (and released) when :
- it perfectly passes every the unit-tests in debug mode with MacOs,
Win32/64, Debian 64,
- it perfectly builds in each platform and
- it perfectly passes manual tests on the release bin for each platform.
Manual tests are available on our main website : freemedforms.com
-> This is because we do not have time to test and pack all sub-versions
like before.
Currently v1.1.0 does passes all tests under MacOs, does build correctly on
Debian in debug mode but not in release, and is not tested on Win32/64
(build process, unit-tests, installation process, config process...)
because WinDevs quit the project. So it is considered as a pre-version
available only to testers (MacOs).

We know that at least two forks exists (this is what our private data
server's log tells us). We do not receive any patch, invitation to git
repos, or any kind of official informations or queries.

In consequence, we decide that our git repository will not be freely
accessible. Approval does only concern the FreeMedForms' git and the
ability to join the project as member (coder, tester, communication
manager...).

I hope that the situation is clearer for you.

Belle journée
Cordialement


<http://maeker.fr> *Dr Maeker Éric*

*Gériatre, psychogériatre*
eric.mae...@gmail.com
Twitter  @DrMaeker <https://www.twitter.com/drmaeker>
RPPS 10002307964

maeker.fr  Site personnel
empathies.fr  Association Emp@thies
freemedforms.com  Logiciel médical

La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël


Le ven. 10 janv. 2020 à 14:26, Daniel Hakimi  a
écrit :

> If the package is available under the GPL, it strikes me that requiring
> any non-trivial approval to obtain source under that license would not be
> allowed. If the form is just a check box verifying that you have received
> object code, maybe, but this sounds like it may be a license violation. Can
> we clarify what the approval process entails? How much information is
> required, and for what reasons might people be rejected?
>
> However, if some third party were to obtain this source, build from it,
> and make it available, that version of the code would be perfectly Free.
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 08:15 Andreas Tille  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:45:34AM -0500, Daniel Hakimi wrote:
>> > Can you please clarify -- you said the license was the same, but you
>> didn't
>> > say what that license actually was. What license is your code available
>> > under?
>>
>> GPL-3+ [1]
>>
>> BTW, I think if a Debian package is published the requirement to sign
>> anything to get the source code is useless since interested parties can
>> easily download the Debian source package.
>>
>> This is for instance true for the latest source in Git which just has a
>> compile bug which we desperately try to fix to finalise the Qt4
>> removal[2].
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>   Andreas.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/freemedforms-project/blob/master/COPYING.txt
>> [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874880#104
>>
>> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 07:18 Eric Maeker  wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > For now, our NPO is too poor to engage in consulting or to pay
>> external
>> > > developments and we awfully miss time to manage all aspects of a
>> widely
>> > > collaborative project.
>> > > Sounds like we are travelling to "contrib" or "non-free" package ? Or
>> may
>> > > be "non-debian" ?
>> > >
>> > > Belle journée
>> > > Cordialement
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > <http://maeker.fr> *Dr Maeker Éric*
>> > >
>> > > *Gériatre, psychogériatre*
>> > > eric.mae...@gmail.com
>> > > Twitter  @DrMaeker <https://www.twitter.com/drmaeker>
>> > > RPPS 10002307964
>> > >
>> > > maeker.fr  Site personnel
>> > > empathies.fr  Association Emp@thies
>> > > freemedforms.com  Logiciel médical
>> > >
>> > > La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Le ven. 10 janv. 2020 à 03:03, Paul Wise  a écrit :
>> > >
>> > >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 8:00 PM Eric Maeker wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Free Source code is provided to any demander approved by the NPO,
>> code
>&g

Re: FreeMedForms projet

[Eric Maeker]

Hi,

For now, our NPO is too poor to engage in consulting or to pay external
developments and we awfully miss time to manage all aspects of a widely
collaborative project.
Sounds like we are travelling to "contrib" or "non-free" package ? Or may
be "non-debian" ?

Belle journée
Cordialement


<http://maeker.fr> *Dr Maeker Éric*

*Gériatre, psychogériatre*
eric.mae...@gmail.com
Twitter  @DrMaeker <https://www.twitter.com/drmaeker>
RPPS 10002307964

maeker.fr  Site personnel
empathies.fr  Association Emp@thies
freemedforms.com  Logiciel médical

La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël


Le ven. 10 janv. 2020 à 03:03, Paul Wise  a écrit :

> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 8:00 PM Eric Maeker wrote:
>
> > Free Source code is provided to any demander approved by the NPO, code
> licence is still the same.
>
> I don't like this, people seeking source code should not have to get
> approval first. That said, I note that the source code is available
> directly from the site without approval.
>
> > But, the code documentation is only reserved to approved developers by
> this NPO.
>
> I definitely don't like this, it would be much better to publish the
> code documentation to everyone under a free license.
>
> > We do encourage new dev to apply to our NPO and to sign a CLA (which is
> still a draft piece of text actually).
>
> I don't like this either, it would be much better for devs to release
> their contributions under the same license that you do, then you can
> incorporate their changes, preserving their copyright over their
> changes and passing on their license to you to downstream users. So
> the whole of the software is then owned by a variety of copyright
> holders, each of whom also have to abide by the license given to them
> by the other contributors. The license on the software then cannot be
> changed without contributor consensus, so it becomes a much more solid
> project from a user perspective. Single-owner projects are much more
> easy to turn proprietary.
>
> http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html
>
> > The problem is that FreeMedForms EHR needs access to private data
>
> Could you explain why this data needs to be private? It would be much
> better to release it publicly under a free license.
>
> > The private data are only available to paying partners to the NPO.
>
> Is this the only form of income that the NPO has available to it? It
> sounds like the NPO is seeking what is called an "Open Core" business
> model, where the core part of the project is public and freely
> licensed but addons are proprietary. The incentives here can be quite
> perverse, often companies seek to prevent outside contributions to the
> core or even remove features from the core so that more people start
> paying them for the proprietary addons. So I encourage you to consider
> alternative income streams.
>
> I think the best option for the would be to consult with as many of
> the practices, clinics, hospitals and emergency departments that you
> know about that use the software and find out the best way for the NPO
> to have enough resources to continue development consistent with the
> interests of the community of folks who use the software. Examples of
> potential income models could include: large grants/sponsorships that
> cover development and other costs, a membership subscriber base that
> pays for all maintenance and development costs, or more of a
> crowd-funding model where folks interested in specific features pay
> for their development, or a community of consultants that do all work
> on the project as requested by their customers or possibly a
> combination of these and other options.
>
> > Forks trie to access our private data using the open sourced server
> protocol (query to a php script).
>
> I would suggest to just make the data public and under a free license,
> but if you don't want to do that, the way to go would be to setup an
> e-commerce site where people have to pay before they can download the
> private data and then have in the software a way to load the locally
> saved data that has been downloaded from the site. I believe there are
> some freely licensed e-commerce tools in Debian and the consultants
> that offer support for Debian in your area might be able to help with
> finding, installing and configuring them.
>
> https://www.debian.org/consultants/
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-consultants/
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
>

FreeMedForms projet

[Eric Maeker]

Hello everyone,

In introduction to this mail, let me introduce FreeMedForms (if you already
know it, read next paragraph). FreeMedForms is an open source EHR with a
complet drug-drug drug-patient interactions (DDPI) checker. It is a full
set of two apps : freemedforms-ehr and freediams. FreeDiams is the
prescriber assistant plugin of FreeMedForms build into a full complete
application. FreeMedForms is maintained by a french non profit organization
(https://freemedforms.com/fr/asso/start) (association loi 1901). Free
Source code is provided to any demander approved by the NPO, code licence
is still the same. But, the code documentation is only reserved to approved
developers by this NPO. We do encourage new dev to apply to our NPO and to
sign a CLA (which is still a draft piece of text actually).

The problem is that FreeMedForms EHR needs access to private data to
manage DDPI and for some medical forms (some are free, some are not). The
private data are only available to paying partners to the NPO. FreeMedForms
can fully work with free data but without the DDPI and some printing
features.

As FreeMedForms is open source and is forked. Forks trie to access our
private data using the open sourced server protocol (query to a php
script). According to the server's log, we believe that at least two forks
are still trying to download our old private datapacks without any form of
authorization...
We tried SSH access and crypt the data with a private key to share with our
paying partners, but we do not have (time and) competences to do/manage
this...

We know that FreeMedForms is used in eastern europe, spain, france, russia,
argentina, some part of africa and may be other countries (china, uruguay,
brasil). Two clinics use it in their emergencies department. And I'm, as
main manager of the project and as president of the NPO, convinced that the
FreeMedForms project has its place in the Debian and also that the NPO
should focus on keeping FreeMedForms as a strong competitor in the field of
open source EHR.

My time to discuss legal and technical issues, code or support about the
project... is really weak as I'm a much more than full time MD, father,
writer, NPO manager, trainer of doctors, nurses and psychologists, etc...

Do you have any idea to progress with these legal/technical issues ?

Thanks


 *Dr Maeker Éric*

*Gériatre, psychogériatre*
eric.mae...@gmail.com
Twitter  @DrMaeker 
RPPS 10002307964

maeker.fr  Site personnel
empathies.fr  Association Emp@thies
freemedforms.com  Logiciel médical

La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël