Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
"user beware" is standard fare in software EULA's so the good news it would not be unique for this caveat to be added to VistA code. Joseph Kevin Toppenberg wrote: As the author of one such script, I would agree that it is a "user beware" situation. It would be nice if the work could be expanded upon and made more safe. But one has to start somewhere. Kevin --- steven mcphelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is one issue I have with the WorldVistA VistA codebase. I mentioned this at Boston. But it needs to be brought up in this larger context. 1. Who has access to this code base to make any supposed modifications to it? 2. What relationship will all these "scripts" have to the official codebase? a. Will these scripts be certified by some official entity with WorldVistA as being fully compatible with the VA VistA code base and will do no harm to VA VistA? b. If not will the variances be documented? c. Is there a list of these scripts and their certification status by some entity in authority for WorldVistA? 3. To date, who has been allowed to make modifications to the WorldVistA VistA codebase? a. Have those modifications been well documented so that others can review them? b. Who decides what modifications will and will not be added to the WorldVistA codebase? c. Are there established, documented processes certifying these changes have done no harm to the VA VistA code base? d. Where is the documented plan to maintain, support, and update any modifications made to the VA VistA codebase? e. Is there a well defined software QA process established to certify any of these changes to the VA codebase. If so who is involved with this and are the findings available for review? I could go on... Rick did promise that some of these may be addressed at the next WorldVistA meeting. I think the audience needs right now a list of these scripts and which of these are officially blessed by WorldVistA (i.e., the Board and the President) and why. Or there should be a disclaimer presented with some such wording as "User beware and use at your own risk". Frankly, I believe people get this stuff from WorldVistA or hardhats and believe that it has the total and unreserved approval of the WorldVistA Board and the President of WorldVistA. I am not sure that approval really exists. I personally view these "scripts" as any other freeware. If you like it, use it, but YOU assume ALL responsibility for the outcome of using it. As an example of these concerns: This move to internationalize VistA is no small trivial task, It will require extensive modifications of FOIA VistA. Thus each and every patch that is released by the VA will have to be scrubbed to make it internationalized ready for implementation into the WorldVistA codebase. Again this is no small trivial process. The code and the KIDS build has to be modified. Then it has to be extensively QA'd again. It needs to see if there are any new interactions with the FOIA codebase that did not exist previously. This is no simple, trivial, short-time frame task. Where is the published processes documenting who, what, where, when, and how this will be done (or any of the other modifications made)? Or will the modified WorldVistA codebase be like HUI? I am under the impression (right or wrong) that the HUI VistA codebase is way out of synch with the current VA codebase, like maybe several years out of synch. I am not the only one with this impression. I raise this up on this licensing thread because the answers to these questions will affect the license. If it is open source, then I as an end-user have the right to know exactly who, what, when, where, and how items are incorporated into the SUPPORTED codebase. WorldVistA does not have a financial engine like Apache to generate resources to maintain this support. - Original Message - From: "Mark Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh? Well, riddle me this.. and I just didn't fall off the turnip truck. Several board members of WorldVista also have a commercial interest in the success of VistA, along with a few outside commercial vendors who have the dough to throw at this immense project. How many code bases are there now? FOIA, HUI, WorldVistA, OpenVistA? From where I sit Medsphere with it's hired talent and marketing power has a leg up. 1. WorldVista is the organization - OpenVista is the codebase. (T/F) 2. What specific 'open source' license(s) are being considered for 'OpenVista'? 3. What boundaries in the fine print of the GPL are of concern to the WorldVista organization? The boundaries that separate what's yours from what's ours would be similar to genetically modified corn or cotton seeds being carried by
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
As the author of one such script, I would agree that it is a "user beware" situation. It would be nice if the work could be expanded upon and made more safe. But one has to start somewhere. Kevin --- steven mcphelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is one issue I have with the WorldVistA VistA > codebase. I mentioned > this at Boston. But it needs to be brought up in > this larger context. > 1. Who has access to this code base to make any > supposed modifications to > it? > 2. What relationship will all these "scripts" have > to the official codebase? > a. Will these scripts be certified by some > official entity with > WorldVistA as being fully compatible with the VA > VistA code base and will do > no harm to VA VistA? > b. If not will the variances be documented? > c. Is there a list of these scripts and their > certification status by > some entity in authority for WorldVistA? > 3. To date, who has been allowed to make > modifications to the WorldVistA > VistA codebase? > a. Have those modifications been well documented > so that others can > review them? > b. Who decides what modifications will and will > not be added to the > WorldVistA codebase? > c. Are there established, documented processes > certifying these changes > have done no harm to the VA VistA code base? > d. Where is the documented plan to maintain, > support, and update any > modifications made to the VA VistA codebase? > e. Is there a well defined software QA process > established to certify > any of these changes to the VA codebase. If so who > is involved with this > and are the findings available for review? > > I could go on... > Rick did promise that some of these may be addressed > at the next WorldVistA > meeting. > > I think the audience needs right now a list of these > scripts and which of > these are officially blessed by WorldVistA (i.e., > the Board and the > President) and why. Or there should be a disclaimer > presented with some > such wording as "User beware and use at your own > risk". Frankly, I believe > people get this stuff from WorldVistA or hardhats > and believe that it has > the total and unreserved approval of the WorldVistA > Board and the President > of WorldVistA. I am not sure that approval really > exists. I personally > view these "scripts" as any other freeware. If you > like it, use it, but YOU > assume ALL responsibility for the outcome of using > it. > > As an example of these concerns: > This move to internationalize VistA is no small > trivial task, It will > require extensive modifications of FOIA VistA. Thus > each and every patch > that is released by the VA will have to be scrubbed > to make it > internationalized ready for implementation into the > WorldVistA codebase. > Again this is no small trivial process. The code > and the KIDS build has to > be modified. Then it has to be extensively QA'd > again. It needs to see if > there are any new interactions with the FOIA > codebase that did not exist > previously. This is no simple, trivial, short-time > frame task. Where is > the published processes documenting who, what, > where, when, and how this > will be done (or any of the other modifications > made)? > > Or will the modified WorldVistA codebase be like > HUI? I am under the > impression (right or wrong) that the HUI VistA > codebase is way out of synch > with the current VA codebase, like maybe several > years out of synch. I am > not the only one with this impression. > > I raise this up on this licensing thread because the > answers to these > questions will affect the license. If it is open > source, then I as an > end-user have the right to know exactly who, what, > when, where, and how > items are incorporated into the SUPPORTED codebase. > WorldVistA does not > have a financial engine like Apache to generate > resources to maintain this > support. > > > - Original Message - > From: "Mark Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:11 PM > Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - > ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic > eh? > > > > Well, riddle me this.. and I just didn't fall > off the turnip truck. > > > > Several board members of WorldVista also have a > commercial interest in the > > success of VistA, along with a few outside > commercial vendors who have the > > dough to throw at this immense project. > > > > How many code bases are there now? FOIA, HUI, > WorldVistA, OpenVistA? > Fro
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
There is one issue I have with the WorldVistA VistA codebase. I mentioned this at Boston. But it needs to be brought up in this larger context. 1. Who has access to this code base to make any supposed modifications to it? 2. What relationship will all these "scripts" have to the official codebase? a. Will these scripts be certified by some official entity with WorldVistA as being fully compatible with the VA VistA code base and will do no harm to VA VistA? b. If not will the variances be documented? c. Is there a list of these scripts and their certification status by some entity in authority for WorldVistA? 3. To date, who has been allowed to make modifications to the WorldVistA VistA codebase? a. Have those modifications been well documented so that others can review them? b. Who decides what modifications will and will not be added to the WorldVistA codebase? c. Are there established, documented processes certifying these changes have done no harm to the VA VistA code base? d. Where is the documented plan to maintain, support, and update any modifications made to the VA VistA codebase? e. Is there a well defined software QA process established to certify any of these changes to the VA codebase. If so who is involved with this and are the findings available for review? I could go on... Rick did promise that some of these may be addressed at the next WorldVistA meeting. I think the audience needs right now a list of these scripts and which of these are officially blessed by WorldVistA (i.e., the Board and the President) and why. Or there should be a disclaimer presented with some such wording as "User beware and use at your own risk". Frankly, I believe people get this stuff from WorldVistA or hardhats and believe that it has the total and unreserved approval of the WorldVistA Board and the President of WorldVistA. I am not sure that approval really exists. I personally view these "scripts" as any other freeware. If you like it, use it, but YOU assume ALL responsibility for the outcome of using it. As an example of these concerns: This move to internationalize VistA is no small trivial task, It will require extensive modifications of FOIA VistA. Thus each and every patch that is released by the VA will have to be scrubbed to make it internationalized ready for implementation into the WorldVistA codebase. Again this is no small trivial process. The code and the KIDS build has to be modified. Then it has to be extensively QA'd again. It needs to see if there are any new interactions with the FOIA codebase that did not exist previously. This is no simple, trivial, short-time frame task. Where is the published processes documenting who, what, where, when, and how this will be done (or any of the other modifications made)? Or will the modified WorldVistA codebase be like HUI? I am under the impression (right or wrong) that the HUI VistA codebase is way out of synch with the current VA codebase, like maybe several years out of synch. I am not the only one with this impression. I raise this up on this licensing thread because the answers to these questions will affect the license. If it is open source, then I as an end-user have the right to know exactly who, what, when, where, and how items are incorporated into the SUPPORTED codebase. WorldVistA does not have a financial engine like Apache to generate resources to maintain this support. - Original Message - From: "Mark Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh? > Well, riddle me this.. and I just didn't fall off the turnip truck. > > Several board members of WorldVista also have a commercial interest in the > success of VistA, along with a few outside commercial vendors who have the > dough to throw at this immense project. > > How many code bases are there now? FOIA, HUI, WorldVistA, OpenVistA? From > where I sit Medsphere with it's hired talent and marketing power has a leg > up. > > 1. WorldVista is the organization - OpenVista is the codebase. (T/F) > 2. What specific 'open source' license(s) are being considered for > 'OpenVista'? > 3. What boundaries in the fine print of the GPL are of concern to the > WorldVista organization? > > The boundaries that separate what's yours from what's ours would be similar to > genetically modified corn or cotton seeds being carried by natural or other > means from your field into my field. I imagine the concept will have to be > similar to proprietary binary modules plugged into the Linux kernel, or > binary only distribution of commercial components. > > Anyway you look at it, your's vs. our's does not foster broad community > support, involve
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
Well, riddle me this.. and I just didn't fall off the turnip truck. Several board members of WorldVista also have a commercial interest in the success of VistA, along with a few outside commercial vendors who have the dough to throw at this immense project. How many code bases are there now? FOIA, HUI, WorldVistA, OpenVistA? From where I sit Medsphere with it's hired talent and marketing power has a leg up. 1. WorldVista is the organization - OpenVista is the codebase. (T/F) 2. What specific 'open source' license(s) are being considered for 'OpenVista'? 3. What boundaries in the fine print of the GPL are of concern to the WorldVista organization? The boundaries that separate what's yours from what's ours would be similar to genetically modified corn or cotton seeds being carried by natural or other means from your field into my field. I imagine the concept will have to be similar to proprietary binary modules plugged into the Linux kernel, or binary only distribution of commercial components. Anyway you look at it, your's vs. our's does not foster broad community support, involvement and innovation. Look to the Apache project, PHP and the Linux kernel of models that have succeeded in this regard. Like I have seen on a signature on Linux Today one must first understand recursion to understand recursion. On Saturday 23 April 2005 15:56, Maury Pepper wrote: > Yes, the line must have been staticky. WorldVistA will definitely be > putting an open source license on OpenVistA. Which license it will be is > under discussion. GPL has both fans and critics, and in the fine print, > it's not exactly clear where the boundaries are that separate what's yours > from what's ours when it comes to packages bundled like VistA, written in > code like M[UMPS]. > > Kevin's comment is correct, and that is why it's important to pick a > license that will allow add-ons that are clearly distinct from VistA. That > said, we also want a license that will foster a strong central repository > -- not a fragmented one. > > A reminder: comments regarding this topic are welcome on the discussion > list vista-open-source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vista-open-source -- Mark Street, RHCE http://www.oswizards.com -- Key fingerprint = 3949 39E4 6317 7C3C 023E 2B1F 6FB3 06E7 D109 56C0 GPG key http://www.oswizards.com/pubkey.asc --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
Perhaps I am wrong... wait... I know... hard to believe :) BUT My point about FOIA's "freeness" is that it is free, not open. That is why people take it modify it and make other products from it. If it where open...it would foster more development. Several people I know are interested in Peds, and Gyne... which are notably absent. Several groups from my understanding have developed peds and gyne. But, have not shared them, simply because they don't have to. Now, if someone else develops peds and shares it to the community with a gpl'd vista then everyone can use it. And, the people who wanted to develop peds, now can focus their energies on other aspects. Let's say then that Kevin writes a completely new imaging system for vista because all the time he would have devoted to replicating a peds module is freed for him to work on imaging. He can horde it, but if he uses the gpl'd vista and the peds module that has been added then he is ethically and legally bound to release it gpl. Kevin's name was chosen at random but, the example wasn't. By saying that people will not use GPL until someone makes a GPL contribution is in my mind the exactly wrong way to look at it. You make it GPL and people will grow it to the point were companies will actually prefer to use a much modified GPLd VistA than the FOIA which of course will still be incorporated into the GPLd product. The idea isn't leading the horse to water and trying to make him drink... It is rather ... you lead the horse to water... there is an overhanging rock formation that nearly bridges the water. The overhang has been built by years of water erosion due to some beavers upstream diverting water into this particular channel. Now... the horse with his MIT doctorate in civil engineering takes leftover wood from the beavers dam building and completes the small portion remaining of this "bridge" He then claims the bridge is his and requires toll to pass. Oh... and he won't tell you how he made the remaining portion of the bridge. But, you are free to go find your own overhang.. or perhaps just to go hang. Or something like that. Manolis The Opensource mother goose On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 09:48 -0400, Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > There is nothing preventing anyone from working with VistA as an open > source code base. As far as licensing is concernec, there is an old > saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it > drink"with emphasis on the "make". What is more of a challenge is > "opening" the mindset of those who have built businesses with or have > bought into the "legacy" paradigms that we are all familiar with. An > appropriate license is necessary but it is not sufficient to stimulate > open source behaviouruntil there is a compatible and significantly > more valuable alternative to FOIA VistA there is no incentive to > seriously consider and understand the open source process. The > interesting thing is that there will always be a FOIA alternative so > companies will be free to continue pursuing whatever approach they > prefer with that code base. > > Joseph --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
Several people (as in more than one but less than a billion) have written to me and said that a big reason that they do not participate, even though they are interested in VistA is the lack of an open license. In my previous post I mentioned something about wheels... we should be flying by now... I am still writing the documentation that I said would be done yesterday. I already know it is going to suck... but it will be released GNU FDL which means that you can modify it and make it better :P Manolis On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 02:19 +0300, Doctor Bones wrote: > BLAH BLAH BLAH --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
There is nothing preventing anyone from working with VistA as an open source code base. As far as licensing is concernec, there is an old saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"with emphasis on the "make". What is more of a challenge is "opening" the mindset of those who have built businesses with or have bought into the "legacy" paradigms that we are all familiar with. An appropriate license is necessary but it is not sufficient to stimulate open source behaviouruntil there is a compatible and significantly more valuable alternative to FOIA VistA there is no incentive to seriously consider and understand the open source process. The interesting thing is that there will always be a FOIA alternative so companies will be free to continue pursuing whatever approach they prefer with that code base. Joseph Doctor Bones wrote: Yes, you can argue about licenses from now until Sunday (in fact today :) I admit arguing about licenses is a bit like a religious argument. However, from what Mark says the issue of the license is completely moot. Because, Vista is NOT opensource. In fact it isn't even really free. It is a free copy of something closed. And just like you can make an origami bird from a copy of the bill of rights, if you did such to the original people would be quite miffed, and rightly so (actually they would probably be miffed if you did it to a copy too... but not as miffed). My main reason for being a proponent of GPL.. even though, as you point out there are issues with it.. Is because it DOES foster a unified development, despite the other issues surrounding it. For instance, how many people/companies have developed Gynecology or Pediatrics or modules for vista, and not released them as opensource to the comunity? So the wheel has to be reinvented time and time again. Who exactly, defines clearly distinct? What does that mean? Does it need VistA to run? Yours, mine, and ours... are not really community sentiments. Oh.. and even, if something is opensourced you can still sell it. Ah... whatever... (DAMN soapbox broke) Manolis P.S. I joined the mailing list, but it doesn't seem like there is too much action lately. On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 17:56 -0500, Maury Pepper wrote: Drs Kevin & Bones (alias Rosanne Rosanneadanna, alias Emily Litella) Yes, the line must have been staticky. WorldVistA will definitely be putting an open source license on OpenVistA. Which license it will be is under discussion. GPL has both fans and critics, and in the fine print, it's not exactly clear where the boundaries are that separate what's yours from what's ours when it comes to packages bundled like VistA, written in code like M[UMPS]. Kevin's comment is correct, and that is why it's important to pick a license that will allow add-ons that are clearly distinct from VistA. That said, we also want a license that will foster a strong central repository -- not a fragmented one. A reminder: comments regarding this topic are welcome on the discussion list vista-open-source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vista-open-source -maury- - Original Message - From: Kevin Toppenberg To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh? The understanding I got was that we wanted to allow companies to be able to develop modules that work with VistA, and have them be propriatary. Even on Linux, one can make a commercial program that makes use of open source technology. Kevin Doctor Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at the moment... and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista person or personality. BUT... I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it isn't covered by the GPL or another license that ensures development happens in the open. HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be going off half cocked here and the connection was bad but from the meeting in Boston... I remember someone from world vista saying that they want to ensure that developers who develop code are not bound to release it as open source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we really appreciate it. This to me just sounds extremely wrong. You are just asking for a fragmented code base..
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
Yes, you can argue about licenses from now until Sunday (in fact today :) I admit arguing about licenses is a bit like a religious argument. However, from what Mark says the issue of the license is completely moot. Because, Vista is NOT opensource. In fact it isn't even really free. It is a free copy of something closed. And just like you can make an origami bird from a copy of the bill of rights, if you did such to the original people would be quite miffed, and rightly so (actually they would probably be miffed if you did it to a copy too... but not as miffed). My main reason for being a proponent of GPL.. even though, as you point out there are issues with it.. Is because it DOES foster a unified development, despite the other issues surrounding it. For instance, how many people/companies have developed Gynecology or Pediatrics or modules for vista, and not released them as opensource to the comunity? So the wheel has to be reinvented time and time again. Who exactly, defines clearly distinct? What does that mean? Does it need VistA to run? Yours, mine, and ours... are not really community sentiments. Oh.. and even, if something is opensourced you can still sell it. Ah... whatever... (DAMN soapbox broke) Manolis P.S. I joined the mailing list, but it doesn't seem like there is too much action lately. On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 17:56 -0500, Maury Pepper wrote: > Drs Kevin & Bones (alias Rosanne Rosanneadanna, alias Emily Litella) > > Yes, the line must have been staticky. WorldVistA will definitely be > putting an open source license on OpenVistA. Which license it will > be is under discussion. GPL has both fans and critics, and in the fine > print, it's not exactly clear where the boundaries are that separate > what's yours from what's ours when it comes to packages bundled like > VistA, written in code like M[UMPS]. > > Kevin's comment is correct, and that is why it's important to pick a > license that will allow add-ons that are clearly distinct from VistA. > That said, we also want a license that will foster a strong central > repository -- not a fragmented one. > > A reminder: comments regarding this topic are welcome on the > discussion list > vista-open-source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vista-open-source > > -maury- > > > - Original Message - > From: Kevin Toppenberg > To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:27 PM > Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office > - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh? > > > The understanding I got was that we wanted to allow companies > to be able to develop modules that work with VistA, and have > them be propriatary. Even on Linux, one can make a commercial > program that makes use of open source technology. > > Kevin > > Doctor Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at > the moment... > and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista > person or > personality. BUT... > > I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it > isn't covered by > the GPL or another license that ensures development > happens in the open. > HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be > going off half > cocked here and the connection was bad but > from the meeting in > Boston... I remember someone from world vista saying > that they want to > ensure that developers who develop code are not bound > to release it as > open source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we > really appreciate > it. > > This to me just sounds extremely wrong. You are just > asking for a > fragmented code base... and you are ensuring that NO > major new > developments happen from anyone outside the VA, unless > out of some > personal or corporate guiding principle decide to > release it as open > source. Thank you Sanchez and your new owners. > > I can assure you that whatever development I > may/will/probably do will > be opensourced and GPL'd... >
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
Drs Kevin & Bones (alias Rosanne Rosanneadanna, alias Emily Litella) Yes, the line must have been staticky. WorldVistA will definitely be putting an open source license on OpenVistA. Which license it will be is under discussion. GPL has both fans and critics, and in the fine print, it's not exactly clear where the boundaries are that separate what's yours from what's ours when it comes to packages bundled like VistA, written in code like M[UMPS]. Kevin's comment is correct, and that is why it's important to pick a license that will allow add-ons that are clearly distinct from VistA. That said, we also want a license that will foster a strong central repository -- not a fragmented one. A reminder: comments regarding this topic are welcome on the discussion list vista-open-source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vista-open-source -maury- - Original Message - From: Kevin Toppenberg To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh? The understanding I got was that we wanted to allow companies to be able to develop modules that work with VistA, and have them be propriatary. Even on Linux, one can make a commercial program that makes use of open source technology. Kevin Doctor Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at the moment... and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista person orpersonality. BUT...I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it isn't covered bythe GPL or another license that ensures development happens in the open.HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be going off halfcocked here and the connection was bad but from the meeting inBoston... I remember someone from world vista saying that they want toensure that developers who develop code are not bound to release it asopen source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we really appreciateit. This to me just sounds extremely wrong. You are just asking for afragmented code base... and you are ensuring that NO major newdevelopments happen from anyone outside the VA, unless out of somepersonal or corporate guiding principle decide to release it as opensource. Thank you Sanchez and your new owners.I can assure you that whatever development I may/will/probably do willbe opensourced and GPL'd...Does this mean that I don't want money... NOBut, this does mean that I don't want money for making whatever changesI make to a FREE Software product. I know that no matter what I do willnot equal the work done by one of the many hero's of this program (ofwhich I know many are on this list) If I were you, I would beoutraged that other people are taking your code adding parts to it andprivatizing it. Even, if it is a company that you yourself work for, orcode that you yourself are adding. You have given us, and the world agift. A gift that has the potential to transform medical care andresearch throughout the worldPROFIT is important, and for a company the most important...but, profitcan be made and should be made while ensuring that the codebase that youstarted with grows and matures for all.Of course, the line was staticky, and I may have misheard the meeting :PSO, if that is the case..Nevermind.This has been Rosanna Danna Dannafor Manolis
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
But doesn't that require a license like the LPGL? Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Apr 23, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Kevin Toppenberg wrote: The understanding I got was that we wanted to allow companies to be able to develop modules that work with VistA, and have them be propriatary. Even on Linux, one can make a commercial program that makes use of open source technology. Kevin --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click ___ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
It is called context Mano. maybe it was lost in translation and nuance. public domain software is different than open source software which is different than free software. Open Source is thrown around very loosely these days. There are a lot of licenses out there, the license is what matters Unless you want to read the 50 page EULA from other 'Open Source' projects ; ) Relax public domain is about as open source as you can get. No licensing what so ever. From the article... and I quote: "Technically, however, VistA and VistA-Office EHR are public-domain software, not open source. Public-domain software means that anyone can obtain VistA's source code under the Freedom of Information Act and can then alter it. However, the VA keeps tight control over VistA's development and doesn't accept programming contributions from outsiders." On Saturday 23 April 2005 04:57, Doctor Bones wrote: > I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at the moment... > and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista person or > personality. BUT... > > I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it isn't covered by > the GPL or another license that ensures development happens in the open. > HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be going off half > cocked here and the connection was bad but from the meeting in > Boston... I remember someone from world vista saying that they want to > ensure that developers who develop code are not bound to release it as > open source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we really appreciate > it. -- Mark Street, RHCE http://www.oswizards.com -- Key fingerprint = 3949 39E4 6317 7C3C 023E 2B1F 6FB3 06E7 D109 56C0 GPG key http://www.oswizards.com/pubkey.asc --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click ___ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
The understanding I got was that we wanted to allow companies to be able to develop modules that work with VistA, and have them be propriatary. Even on Linux, one can make a commercial program that makes use of open source technology. Kevin Doctor Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at the moment... and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista person orpersonality. BUT...I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it isn't covered bythe GPL or another license that ensures development happens in the open.HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be going off halfcocked here and the connection was bad but from the meeting inBoston... I remember someone from world vista saying that they want toensure that developers who develop code are not bound to release it asopen source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we really appreciateit. This to me just sounds extremely wrong. You are just asking for afragmented code base... and you are ensuring that NO major newdevelopments happen from anyone outside the VA, unless out of somepersonal or corporate guiding principle decide to release it as opensource. Thank you Sanchez and your new owners.I can assure you that whatever development I may/will/probably do willbe opensourced and GPL'd...Does this mean that I don't want money... NOBut, this does mean that I don't want money for making whatever changesI make to a FREE Software product. I know that no matter what I do willnot equal the work done by one of the many hero's of this program (ofwhich I know many are on this list) If I were you, I would beoutraged that other people are taking your code adding parts to it andprivatizing it. Even, if it is a company that you yourself work for, orcode that you yourself are adding. You have given us, and the world agift. A gift that has the potential to transform medical care andresearch throughout the worldPROFIT is important, and for a company the most important...but, profitcan be made and should be made while ensuring that the codebase that youstarted with grows and matures for all.Of course, the line was staticky, and I may have misheard the meeting :PSO, if that is the case..Nevermind.This has been Rosanna Danna Dannafor ManolisOn Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:21 -0700, Kevin Toppenberg wrote:> Now here's an interesting paragraph from the link> below:> > Although VistA is not open-source software, at least> one vendor, Medsphere Systems Corp., is marketing an> open-source version of it. However, the Aliso Viejo,> Calif., company is selling its product only to> hospitals at this time, said Scott Shreeve, MD, chief> medical officer and a co-founder of Medsphere> > ;-)> Kevin> > > > --- Mark Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:> > >> http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2005/04/11/bisa0411.htm> > > > Is his last statement valid?> > > > Will or can we get an early peak at the codebase for> > VistA-Office? Any > > resources for what is going in and what is being> > taken out?> > > > >The VA is modifying its VistA software for> > physician offices, and that > > >version is expected to become available in July,> > said Mike Ginsburg, project > > >manager for the VistA-Office EHR at the Iowa> > Foundation for Medical Care, > > >which is managing the conversion of VistA from an> > inpatient to outpatient > > >setting as part of a contract with the Centers for> > Medicare & Medicaid > > >Services.> > ..> > >VistA-Office EHR would be made available free over> > the Intern et, but doctors > > >won't be able to run the application unless they> > license MUMPS, a database > > >programming language from third-party vendors,> > Ginsburg said. That cost will > > >vary depending on who is selling the license, the> > size of the implementation > > >and number of users. Ginsburg estimated the cost to> > small and medium-sized > > >practices would run in the four figures.> > > > >Open-source versions of MUMPS are available, and> > "theoretically" will work > > >with VistA, Ginsburg said.> > -- > > Mark Street, RHCE> > http://www.oswizards.com> > --> > Key fingerprint = 3949 39E4 6317 7C3C 023E 2B1F> > 6FB3 06E7 D109 56C0> > GPG key http://www.oswizards.com/pubkey.asc> > > > > >> ---> > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide> > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT> > Products from real users.> > Discover which products truly live up to the hype.> > Start reading now.> >> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click> > ___> > Hardhats-members mailing list> > Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members> > > > > __> Do You Yahoo!?> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > --
Re: [Hardhats-members] Vista-Office - ..worldvista..openvista...opensource... off-topic eh?
I realize, that I am doing nothing but muckraking at the moment... and, I know that I am NOT by any means a core vista person or personality. BUT... I am offended that we call openvista, openvista... it isn't covered by the GPL or another license that ensures development happens in the open. HENCE the open for the OPEN source. I realize I may be going off half cocked here and the connection was bad but from the meeting in Boston... I remember someone from world vista saying that they want to ensure that developers who develop code are not bound to release it as open source. ALTHOUGH it is a really good idea and we really appreciate it. This to me just sounds extremely wrong. You are just asking for a fragmented code base... and you are ensuring that NO major new developments happen from anyone outside the VA, unless out of some personal or corporate guiding principle decide to release it as open source. Thank you Sanchez and your new owners. I can assure you that whatever development I may/will/probably do will be opensourced and GPL'd... Does this mean that I don't want money... NO But, this does mean that I don't want money for making whatever changes I make to a FREE Software product. I know that no matter what I do will not equal the work done by one of the many hero's of this program (of which I know many are on this list) If I were you, I would be outraged that other people are taking your code adding parts to it and privatizing it. Even, if it is a company that you yourself work for, or code that you yourself are adding. You have given us, and the world a gift. A gift that has the potential to transform medical care and research throughout the world PROFIT is important, and for a company the most important...but, profit can be made and should be made while ensuring that the codebase that you started with grows and matures for all. Of course, the line was staticky, and I may have misheard the meeting :P SO, if that is the case. . Nevermind . This has been Rosanna Danna Danna for Manolis On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 13:21 -0700, Kevin Toppenberg wrote: > Now here's an interesting paragraph from the link > below: > > Although VistA is not open-source software, at least > one vendor, Medsphere Systems Corp., is marketing an > open-source version of it. However, the Aliso Viejo, > Calif., company is selling its product only to > hospitals at this time, said Scott Shreeve, MD, chief > medical officer and a co-founder of Medsphere > > ;-) > Kevin > > > > --- Mark Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2005/04/11/bisa0411.htm > > > > Is his last statement valid? > > > > Will or can we get an early peak at the codebase for > > VistA-Office? Any > > resources for what is going in and what is being > > taken out? > > > > >The VA is modifying its VistA software for > > physician offices, and that > > >version is expected to become available in July, > > said Mike Ginsburg, project > > >manager for the VistA-Office EHR at the Iowa > > Foundation for Medical Care, > > >which is managing the conversion of VistA from an > > inpatient to outpatient > > >setting as part of a contract with the Centers for > > Medicare & Medicaid > > >Services. > > .. > > >VistA-Office EHR would be made available free over > > the Internet, but doctors > > >won't be able to run the application unless they > > license MUMPS, a database > > >programming language from third-party vendors, > > Ginsburg said. That cost will > > >vary depending on who is selling the license, the > > size of the implementation > > >and number of users. Ginsburg estimated the cost to > > small and medium-sized > > >practices would run in the four figures. > > > > >Open-source versions of MUMPS are available, and > > "theoretically" will work > > >with VistA, Ginsburg said. > > -- > > Mark Street, RHCE > > http://www.oswizards.com > > -- > > Key fingerprint = 3949 39E4 6317 7C3C 023E 2B1F > > 6FB3 06E7 D109 56C0 > > GPG key http://www.oswizards.com/pubkey.asc > > > > > > > --- > > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT > > Products from real users. > > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. > > Start reading now. > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > > ___ > > Hardhats-members mailing list > > Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > --- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users
