I saw this on SlashDot or something a few days ago.
The editorial reviews seems to indicate it is fairly complete.
*'Open Source Licensing : Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law'
*I found it on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0131487876/qid=1105460679/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-4242636-3883218.
Good luck
Pat* *
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
.
.
