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... > 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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
