My comments over the past few days are in response to Fred's new initiative in which I thought they may have come up with a novel way bridge the FOSS-proprietary divide. I was mistaken. Nevertheless, since I still believe in FOSS and in promoting low cost/resource conserving solutions for better world health, I intend to remain engaged and contributing additional non-proprietary programs; no strings attached.
I don't know who's calling who names, Mark, and I certainly didn't want to make this a contentious discussion. The reason I hadn't evolved my blog in the last year is because I had given up on any possibility of resolution; so, yes, we're going commercial. Although I don't recall any testiness on my part, there were times I felt attacked simply because I have a patent--and was, by default, automatically lumped in with software patent-holders who behaved unethically--which I felt was unfair and I said so. Anyway, that was almost a year ago. What frustrates me now, however, is the inability to find a win-win way to offer our cyberinfrastructure and computational healthcare models (which use our patented methodology) through some sort of hybrid FOSS license. What about making it available as FOSS only for products deployed in third world nations? I don't know how practical that would be Just brain-storming here. If there's no solution, so be it! Steve --- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spohr <msp...@...> wrote: > > Steve, > I went back and re-read your blog to see if your thinking had evolved > with something new but it does not seem to have changed. > > You want to 'open source' your software but keep part of it patented. > It's nice that you are interested in FOSS but it doesn't work that > way. If you want it to be open source, you need to give it all away > and not put restrictions on it. Don't expect FOSS to make a special > 'Steve' license. Your blog is a bit testy and accusatory but I don't > think you should take it personally. You don't have a FOSS product. > Just release it as a commercial product and rake it the big bucks from > your 'tens of thousands of dollars of investment over the past 15 > years'. We all wish you the best. Just stop calling us names and > getting your shorts all knotted up. > > .Mark > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Stephen Beller<sbel...@...> wrote: > > 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.marcelo@> wrote: >
