I didn't think you were pointing to me, Fred, but I do thank you anyway for clarifying.
To follow up on Alvin's comment, I have several other programs I'm considering licensing as FOSS, but the functions that I believe would be most useful to the FOSS community consist of a radical/disruptive (novel and non-obvious) underlying patented methodology. The problem is that the BOD and shareholders in our small company simply refuse adopt a FOSS license since it would mean relinquishing the tens of thousands of dollars and man-hours we've invested over past 15 years, even though I personally believe in the FOSS model. This is why I've not been able to participate as much as I would like. I've discussed this issue on my blog at http://opensourceandpatents.blogspot.com/. While a free *noncommercial* use license would be acceptable, the idea that other companies could profit from the methodology for which we've invested so much, but without even minimal return on our investment, is simply not acceptable to those in my company. I was hoping for some mutually acceptable solutions, but at this time I still do not know how to resolve this dilemma. Steve --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, Alvin Marcelo <alvin.marc...@...> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We're a small university-based research group with a FOSS EHR (for govt > health facilities). > > Are there sites/resources for business models on how such FOSS apps can > prosper (economically), where the principles of FOSS are respected but where > the 'investments' of the original team are also taken into consideration? > > alvin (manila) > > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:28 AM, fred trotter <fred.trot...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > I was speaking to patent-holders generally, and not you personally. The > > negotiations we have had together are the template for how a patent-holder > > and a community might potentially work together. Should not have used 'you' > > in this context. Sorry. > > > > -FT > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Stephen Beller > > <sbel...@...<sbeller%40nhds.com>> > > wrote: > > > > > Although it's easy to resent your implication of duplicity (trickery), I > > do > > > understand your practical, though rigid, position. > > > Thanks, > > > Steve > > > > > > --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com <openhealth%40yahoogroups.com>, fred > > trotter <fred.trotter@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Beller <sbeller@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fred, > > > > > > > > > > This is encouraging and I wish you great success! > > > > > > > > > > Two questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1. How do you define "hybrid vendors" and distinguish them from FOSS > > > > > vendors? > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone who makes money by supporting FOSS AND by selling proprietary > > > health > > > > software. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. What roll, if any, do you see for companies having patented > > > > > methodologies? > > > > > > > > > > > > That is largely uncharted territory, but in general I would like to > > treat > > > > that in a similar fashion to hybrid vendors. They will be included and > > > > welcomed, while their slight bias against our core values will be > > > explicitly > > > > labelled. > > > > > > > > In my experience the FOSS community does not like to treated > > > condescendingly > > > > or tricked. If a vendor disagrees with some of our values, but still > > > wants > > > > to work with us in those areas that they agree with us, we should make > > > that > > > > fall over easy for them to do. I would think the same would hold true > > to > > > > patents. Do not try to trick us into implementing something that you > > are > > > > going to later try and charge us for, use standard FOSS patent > > licensing > > > > techniques and we should be just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Steve Beller > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Fred Trotter > > > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Fred Trotter > > http://www.fredtrotter.com > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > -- > Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) > > Director, UP Manila - National Telehealth Center > Director for Southeast Asia, International Open Source Network > Associate Professor of Surgery (Trauma), University of the Philippines > Manila GPG: 0x77B200CA > > Check out PANACeA: http://www.panacea-ehealth.net > > Join IOSN ASEAN+3 discussion: > http://lists.iosnasean.net/listinfo.cgi/iosn-asean3-discuss-iosnasean.net > > Join IMIA WG on Health Informatics for Development: > http://lists.iosnasean.net/listinfo.cgi/imia-wg-hi4dev-iosnasean.net > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
