Hi, I can try to imagine what you are going through. What do you mean by "documentation is not available" ?
Best, Sebastian Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2020, 17:34:35 CET schrieb 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* > [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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/COPYIN > >> G.txt [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874880#104 > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 07:18 Eric Maeker <[email protected]> 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* > >> > > [email protected] > >> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> http://fam-tille.de
