Thanks for the comparison, Fred. What we still lack, I'd suggest, is a mechanism for releasing the WorldVistA EHR codebase under a CentOS-style badge. I think WorldVistA itself needs to take such a step.
Our situation is a little more analogous to "Linux --> CentOS --> RHEL" in that FOIA VistA --> WorldVistA pre-CCHIT --> WorldVistA EHR CCHIT. WorldVistA has built the EHR and then added CCHIT certification. The certification is in some sense a value-added fork from the underlying codebase. It needs to be released in that manner just as you describe. One difference is that we lack a separate CentOS sort of organization. WorldVistA needs to perform that function as well. Joseph can correct me, but I think the name "WorldVistA EHR" is now the CCHIT brand name, use of which must imply the licensing that preserves CCHIT. We need a clear brand name for the code sans-CCHIT, perhaps "WV EHR FOSS" IMHO, JohnLeoZ Fred Trotter wrote: > WorldVistA EHR is using the CCHIT certification in a similar fashion > that many FOSS companies use trademarks. For instance CentOS can use > the GPL codebase of RHEL, but they cannot call it RHEL or otherwise > use the term "Red Hat" in marketing. In a similar fashion, WorldVistA > EHR can be forked and used to create another product, but that new > product cannot be called "WorldVistA EHR" or refer to the CCHIT > certified status of the WorldVistA EHR in marketing. This is a > completely legitimate from a software freedom perspective. Everyone > can have access to the code in a fashions that respect the four > freedoms. Those who wish to pay WorldVistA for the privilege, and > abide by the software maintenance policy, can use both the name and > advertise CCHIT certification. > > I wish it were going faster but this is very important to get right. > WorldVistA is moving into uncharted waters! I can think of no other > FOSS industry with these kinds of complex issues.
