Fred Trotter wrote:
> Tim,
>
>
> > 5) If SourceCodeA calls SourceCodeB at runtime only, then there is no
> > requirement for SourceCodeA to be made available under the GPL. Note
> > that apart from the fact that runtime behaviour is explicitly outside
> > teh scope of the GPL, this is also a
Tim,
> 5) If SourceCodeA calls SourceCodeB at runtime only, then there is no
> requirement for SourceCodeA to be made available under the GPL. Note
> that apart from the fact that runtime behaviour is explicitly outside
> teh scope of the GPL, this is also a corollary of 4) above. In other
> word
Fred Trotter wrote:
> Tim,
>
> > Personally I am opposed to software algorithms and business methods
> > being patentable at all. But in those unfortunate countries in which
> > such patents are issued (eg US, Australia, Japan, India), what you
> > propose is probably OK, provided that univers
Tim,
> Personally I am opposed to software algorithms and business methods
> being patentable at all. But in those unfortunate countries in which
> such patents are issued (eg US, Australia, Japan, India), what you
> propose is probably OK, provided that universal royalty-free patent
> licenses a
Fred Trotter wrote:
> I know that there is a patent application because the FreeMED project
> has disclosed this...
>
> http://www.linuxmednews.com/1098376300/index_html
>
> They may have received a patent already or had it rejected. They have
> not recently indicated what the status of the appl
Tim,
> Actually, you are correct - dual-licensing is still mentioned in Section
> 13 of the MPL license, but references to the GPL are replaced with
> underscores.
strange isnt it. Also there are no copyright notices on the REMITT
files, which is why I addressed my letter to those who were genera
Fred Trotter wrote:
> >
> > If you look carefully, REMITT is dual-licensed under both the MPL v1.1
> > and the GPL v2. Read the LICENSE file carefully! However, the REMITT
> > people have not bothered to modify Exhibit A in the MPL 1.1 license file
> > to identify the original developers and c
Licencing is complicated and a source of trouble...
One of the things in a starter kit for FLOSS in healthcare should
perhaps be a means of plotting the attribution of pieces of code.
I gather the Linux kernel maintainers went back through stuff, and ended
up demonstrating that their project is f
> Actually this has been the subject of considerable confusion. The
> website says that REMITT is licensed under the MPL with GPL
> compatibility. However, a close read of the License file indicates that
> they are not using the GPL compatibility. So the website says one thing
> and the LICENSE say
>
> If you look carefully, REMITT is dual-licensed under both the MPL v1.1
> and the GPL v2. Read the LICENSE file carefully! However, the REMITT
> people have not bothered to modify Exhibit A in the MPL 1.1 license file
> to identify the original developers and contributors, so the validity of
>
Fred Trotter wrote:
> Dear FreeMED BOD,
> Recently I have been interested in interfacing with
> edihealthcare.com. I recalled that during the time Jeff Buchbinder and I
> worked on FreeMED and FreeB together, I paid him to develop a curl based
> interface to that system. I was curious to see
Dear FreeMED BOD,
Recently I have been interested in interfacing with
edihealthcare.com. I recalled that during the time Jeff Buchbinder and I
worked on FreeMED and FreeB together, I paid him to develop a curl based
interface to that system. I was curious to see how REMITT was handling
this
12 matches
Mail list logo
