Tim,
         I suggest you wade through the mess under the blog post entitled
"Medsphere betrays community" on GPLmedicine.org. This is a very complicated
situation and there is little short of understanding everything that will
give clarity.

On 3/5/07, Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fred Trotter wrote:
> > In short they need to
> >
> > 1. Release everything that the originally released under the original
> > licenses
>
> What do you mean by "original licenses"? I thought that the VistA code
> on which Medsphere's OpenVista products are based was in the public
> domain, and thus not under any license. Is that not correct?


This refers to the release for which the Shreeves were sued, which was the
GPL.


But they do seem to have released code for a complete working system,
> including new code for a GUI front end. That is a lot better than 99% of
> health software vendors, who release no code under open source licenses
> at all.


The current client license is badgeware, and not technically open source.
But yes it is better than nothing.

> 2. Stop suing the Shreeves.
>
> I am not defending such litigiousness, but that seems orthogonal to
> whether or not Medsphere can be considered a provider of open source
> health software.


Being a health software vendor of any kind depends on trust. Medsphere has
violated that trust.



Tim C
>
> > On 3/5/07, Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Fred Trotter wrote:
> >>> They have taken a step in the right direction, but they are not done.
> >> Fred,
> >>
> >> What else do they need to do, in your opinion?
> >>
> >> Tim C
> >>
> >>>> OK, thanks, that makes it much clearer. But is it fair to say that
> >>>> Medsphere has now satisfactorily answered the previous fairly
> vehement
> >>>> criticisms on this list that it was not really an open source
> company?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tim C
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


-- 
Fred Trotter
http://www.fredtrotter.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to