Gregory Woodhouse wrote: > > I don't see how it clarifies your reference to the "original > license". VistA is in the public domain in the sense that it may be > obtained though FOIA. That's not the same as being licensed under an > open source license. Indeed, speaking as a non-lawyer, I don't see > how anyone can release VistA itself under GPL or any other license. > At best, I'd think modifications to VistA could be released under an > open source license.
Thus, Medsphere's GPL license can be applied only to the <<differences>> between OpenVista server and FOIA VistA. (Likewise, any modifications World Vista makes to VistA.) IMHO, of course, jlz > Medsphere's client is, of course, unrelated to > VistA (unlike OpenVista, which I understand to be a modified form of > VistA). >
