Fred Trotter wrote: > The software in question was not VistA at all. It was developed internally > at Medsphere. We are simply talking about a company that placed an "open > source" offering on sourceforge and then, dramatically, had the software > removed. > > They have since released one of the items they yanked under an "open sourcy" > badgeware license (OSI is debating internally regarding the validity of > badgeware), they have also released some changes to VistA as GPL. They have > also released public statements that they will always keep 5% proprietary. > As a result Medsphere is a hybrid company, both "open source" and > proprietary.
Just as an aside, it is better to use the term 'closed source' instead of proprietary. "Proprietary" means someone owns the code, and that applies to the vast majority of open source code - copyright is clearly asserted on the code, and some rights are reserved by the copyright holder (and some rights are granted, as specified in teh open source license that applies to the code in question). > I would suggest that they should be listed on the OSCHA > website, but along side IBM which also releases both FOSS and proprietary > medical software. There is a difference between companies that commit to > releasing everything under a FSF and OSI approved licenses, like mine, and > those that do not. I would hope that OSCHA would make the distinction. This is a policy question for OSHCA to consider, and debate should probably take place on the OSHCA mailing list. However, my view, that i will expressing there, is that with the exception of "badgeware", OSHCA should support and applaud all open source releases of health-related software, on an application-by-application basis, not on a company-by-company basis. The key test should be whether what is released as open source has some utility or potential utility to others. Thus, if a company, like, say IBM, has huge software holdings but chooses to only release a few percent of those holdings as open source, then those bits that it does release as open source should have OSHCA's support, and the company should be praised for doing so (with the addded message that releasing even more as open source would be better), and not condemned or shunned by OSHCA because it chooses to pursue mixed open- and closed-source licensing strategies. At the same time, OSHCA must take care not to promote or endorse as open source software or applications which are not actually available under an open source license, even if those application are themselves built with open source components. Tim C > On 3/5/07, Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Fred Trotter wrote: >> >>> 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. >> 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. Medsphere's client is, of course, unrelated to >> VistA (unlike OpenVista, which I understand to be a modified form of >> VistA). >> >> Gregory Woodhouse >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> "Life can only be understood going backwards, but it must be lived >> going forwards." >> --Søren Kierkegaard >> >> >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > >
