-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Matthew Palmer wrote:
| On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 04:39:28PM +1000, Mary Gardiner wrote: | | |> copyright holders earning income from granting extra licences, |> not people who've signed their copyright away in exchange for |> royalties from such sales. |> |> | The issue I see in this model is the problem of valuing | contributions. How do I, as the mediator of this model, work out | who gets what money? Purely by LoC has all the usual | LoC-productivity problems[1]. | | snip
| As someone who might be in a position to implement a system of this | ilk in the nearish future, I'm interested in discussion points | people might like to bring to the table. | | Thanks Matthew / Mary / Jeff
My interest in this arises from my recent election to the GPCG (www.gpcg.org). This is a board that oversees a lump of government money (?~A9 mil) for computing in medical practice. A bunch of us have been agitating for the principle that government funded projects should be open sourced rather than just given away to private enterprise or buried in some government archive.
A few of the academics, bureaucrats and commercial medical industry software developers have come to believe that open source might be a good thing. However, in many ways they are having difficulty in letting go of their proprietary software roots. A group of them have set up the Health OpenWare Foundation (www.healthopenware.org.au) to try to come to a solution to the sorts of problems we have been discussing above. They are struggling.
The environment we are working in is thus quite different to the usual
open source project. There are few people with the cross domain
knowledge to drive these medical computing projects ("He who codes
wins") but it is plain to most, that the proprietary model has led
down a number of dead ends.It would be nice to find a model that would open the source for academics and interested medical practitioners to dabble in code space (Jeff's level three participants) while acknowledging that most the coding would need to be done by professional developers.
OOo thus offers a model that might be applicable in this area and like others I would be interested in the options for outside developers to interact on a commercial basis. The power of an open source meritocracy may not be directly transferable to this situation but we hope that we can at least preserve the principles of code reuse and extensibility.
David
- -- PGP public key 0x24606D9C at pgp.mit.edu 56D7 3608 6D73 0E11 064E 79C8 AC8E 6CAE 2460 6D9C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAxtVvrI5sriRgbZwRAqSkAJ0d+Toc1jRpjJtx6Ql0USRkUlEFMACdHQ6E 9CYph9TUn01S8/FADn0VejI= =41Zf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
