We in WorldVistA in debating what license if any we should employ with community improvements etc. to VistA have discussed at least two of the points to death....

> Software in the Public Domain
> Software licensed to the Public Domain

There is not license for Public Domain.... you basically waive ALL rights to software by placing it in the public domain.... but, unless you are the US gov't which can't hold copyright.... this doesn't mean there isn't a copyright associated with works added to public domain...because copyright is automatic in the US at least....

There is a ton of stuff on the web which you can Google.... it all depends on the context of course.

My personal opinion is that we over complicate things and bringing lawyers into the picture diverts focus from what you are really trying to achieve. It is simple, IMHO, if your license or other restrictions in some way detracts from the common goal of improving health outcomes or creating wellness then you are pursuing a sub-optimal open source strategy in the health domain....

Cheers,

Joseph

Don Grodecki wrote:
I am having arguments with my colleagues regarding some of the terms used with respect to FOSS. Can anyone help me to understand what some of these terms really mean?

Open
Open Source Software
Software in the Public Domain
Software licensed to the Public Domain
Ownership
Copyright
License for Use
License for Derivation
License for Re-Distribution

If you respond and are a lawyer, please say so, so that we can give extra weight to your response!

- Don



.




Reply via email to