Re: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools

[Joseph Dal Molin]

Hemant,

I would avoid creating a "custom" open source license at all 
costsand avoid getting tangled up with the legal dept. By the since 
you are the copyright holders for the software there is nothing stopping 
you from dual licensing your code.

Joseph

Fred Trotter wrote:
> Here is a good place to start.
> 
> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/sharing_medical_software_foss_licensing_in_medicine
> 
> Please do not write your own license.
> 
> Let me know if you have further questions after reading.
> 
> -FT
> 
> On Dec 17, 2007 5:42 PM, Hemant Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Proteus (http://www.proteme.org) is an approach that allows authoring
>> executable clinical processes and guidelines with decision support
>> integrated within them.
>>
>> I am on the verge of making Proteus related tools available under an open
>> source license. I need the advice of this community of open source
>> champions
>> on how to go about it and the choice of open source license. I know this
>> has
>> been discussed time and again on this list but I am still unclear about
>> several things. Therefore please indulge my naiveté.
>>
>> I think LGPL provides most of what I need however I am still not clear
>> about
>> the use of derivative products. Specific example: what is there to prevent
>> me from taking a class e.g, Person of an open source project and extend it
>> by a class called SpecialPerson, and instead of adding the functionality
>> that logically belongs in the Person class, enhance the SpecialPerson
>> which
>> I then keep closed source? By doing this one can easily violate the spirit
>> and the intent of the license.
>>
>> My employer, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is supporting me in getting
>> the
>> Proteus tools open sourced. We have plans to use the open source version
>> for
>> research and to assist clinicians in patient care. Therefore significant
>> development will take place after it has been open sourced. I have access
>> to
>> the HFHS legal department if needed. However, I need to know what help
>> should I seek from them. Does it make sense to craft your own open source
>> license instead of utilizing one of the standard ones?
>>
>> Any advice will be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Hemant
>>
>> --
>> Hemant Shah, M.D., M.Surg.
>> Sr. Research Informatician
>> Henry Ford Health System
>> One Ford Place, 3C
>> Detroit, MI 48202
>>
>>
>> http://www.proteme.org
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools

[K.S. Bhaskar]

Hemant --

First, please do not invent your own license.  We need yet another free 
/ open source software license about as much as we need a toothache. 
Look at http://opensource.org/licenses 
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html and 
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html to help you choose.

As for me, I chose and continue to choose GPL (currently v2, going to 
v3) for GT.M (http://fis-gtm.com and 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/sanchez-gtm) because:

1. It is the most widely used - and hence most widely read and 
understood license.

2. It is the license that IMHO best protects the software developer from 
seeing his work incorporated into a non-FOSS proprietary piece of work.

3. It is the license that is closest to being legally tested & proven in 
the courts.

Apropos your question about SpecialPerson: I can take your software, and 
modify it to my heart's content and as long as I don't distribute it, I 
can create SpecialPerson, SpecialSpecialPerson, etc. and I am under no 
obligation to distribute it as long as I use it for myself (first person 
here can apply to an individual or an organization).  But, if I try to 
distribute SpecialPerson, I have two choices:

1. I can distribute it as a "delta" to the FOSS package and keep 
SpecialPerson proprietary - but then it is not integrated with the FOSS 
package.

2. I can modify the FOSS package to include SpecialPerson, but then I am 
forced to distribute SpecialPerson as FOSS as part of the modified package.

Hope this helps, but this is all I can say in a nutshell.  Beyond that, 
better minds than mine have written extensively on the subject.

Regards
-- Bhaskar

On 12/17/2007 05:42 PM, Hemant Shah wrote:
> 
> 
> Proteus (http://www.proteme.org ) is an approach 
> that allows authoring
> executable clinical processes and guidelines with decision support
> integrated within them.
> 
> I am on the verge of making Proteus related tools available under an open
> source license. I need the advice of this community of open source champions
> on how to go about it and the choice of open source license. I know this has
> been discussed time and again on this list but I am still unclear about
> several things. Therefore please indulge my naiveté.
> 
> I think LGPL provides most of what I need however I am still not clear about
> the use of derivative products. Specific example: what is there to prevent
> me from taking a class e.g, Person of an open source project and extend it
> by a class called SpecialPerson, and instead of adding the functionality
> that logically belongs in the Person class, enhance the SpecialPerson which
> I then keep closed source? By doing this one can easily violate the spirit
> and the intent of the license.
> 
> My employer, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is supporting me in getting the
> Proteus tools open sourced. We have plans to use the open source version for
> research and to assist clinicians in patient care. Therefore significant
> development will take place after it has been open sourced. I have access to
> the HFHS legal department if needed. However, I need to know what help
> should I seek from them. Does it make sense to craft your own open source
> license instead of utilizing one of the standard ones?
> 
> Any advice will be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hemant
> 
> -- 
> Hemant Shah, M.D., M.Surg.
> Sr. Research Informatician
> Henry Ford Health System
> One Ford Place, 3C
> Detroit, MI 48202
> 
> http://www.proteme.org 

__

The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the 
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not 
disclose, 
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender 
immediately. In addition, 
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to 
archiving and review by 
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_

Re: Re: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools

[Tim Churches]

Molly Cheah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Here's the abstract of a paper presented at OSHCA2007 in May in KL.
> 
> Legal issues impacting the use of open source software in health care
> by GK Ganesan

This speaker admitted at the outset of his talk at the conference that he'd 
never considered open source licensing issues until a month before he prepared 
his talk - and frankly his talk reflected this unfamiliarity.  He seemed to 
have little understanding of the nature of health care and his approach was so 
risk-averse that if applied to medicine and nursing, no-one would ever be 
treated for anything because something might go wrong. I know I was not alone 
in having a very negative reaction to his talk.

However I can strongly recommend Brendan Scott for both general and specific 
advice on open source licensing issues - he specialises in the field, and is 
familiar with health care issues as well -  he provided excellent advice to New 
South Wales Dept of Health on open source licensing issues, including risk 
management consideration. He is based in Sydney but regularly does 
international consulting work. Highly recommended. Contact details (and a 
selection of interesting essays by Brendan) at http://www.opensourcelaw.biz/

Tim C

Re: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools

[Molly Cheah]

Here's the abstract of a paper presented at OSHCA2007 in May in KL.

Legal issues impacting the use of open source software in health care


by GK Ganesan


Software relating to healthcare: an introduction to some legal issues

This paper examines legal issues relating to the use of open source 
software in

healthcare, and in particular, discusses questions of law that fall 
within the purview

of the law of contract, and the law of tort.

Software is ubiquitous in the modern word. Nothing is ever done without 
it, and it

would appear, nothing is ever going to be done without it . Yet, as the 
historian

Edward Gibbon said it, it is easier to deplore the state of than to 
describe the

condition of software users.

The sort of software that is used in the medical field has wide scope, 
both of form,

function and range: for instance there are software that deal with mere 
recordkeeping

of patient data and billing procedures. Then there are those that cater for

the electronic monitoring of emergency procedure, or drug dispensation 
in a ‘live’

situation; and finally there are software systems that seem to play a 
major role in

clinical decision making processes. We are here concerned with the latter as

opposed to the former.

Medical personnel are trained to make clinical decisions premised 
observations and

the way a patient responds to stimuli, including drugs, circumstances 
and time.

Decisions are made by observation or other diagnostic tools. What software

purport to do is to take over this human function, prone to human-error 
as it is, and

to translate it into an accurate system of information processing that 
is used to make

decisions which affect the well-being of human beings. So far, so good, 
but how far

may one take this hypothesis before it becomes unsafe to patients?

Software is crafted by programmers and system architects, and not 
doctors. Are the

software or their authors prone to error? If they are, are programmers 
liable, and if

so, in what way? What are the limitations of their liability, and how 
far or wide is the

net cast?

This paper aims to answer these questions by the application of general law.



Hemant Shah wrote:
> Proteus (http://www.proteme.org) is an approach that allows authoring
> executable clinical processes and guidelines with decision support
> integrated within them.
>
> I am on the verge of making Proteus related tools available under an open
> source license. I need the advice of this community of open source champions
> on how to go about it and the choice of open source license. I know this has
> been discussed time and again on this list but I am still unclear about
> several things. Therefore please indulge my naiveté.
>
> I think LGPL provides most of what I need however I am still not clear about
> the use of derivative products. Specific example: what is there to prevent
> me from taking a class e.g, Person of an open source project and extend it
> by a class called SpecialPerson, and instead of adding the functionality
> that logically belongs in the Person class, enhance the SpecialPerson which
> I then keep closed source? By doing this one can easily violate the spirit
> and the intent of the license.
>
> My employer, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is supporting me in getting the
> Proteus tools open sourced. We have plans to use the open source version for
> research and to assist clinicians in patient care. Therefore significant
> development will take place after it has been open sourced. I have access to
> the HFHS legal department if needed. However, I need to know what help
> should I seek from them. Does it make sense to craft your own open source
> license instead of utilizing one of the standard ones?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Hemant
>
>   




 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools

[Fred Trotter]

Here is a good place to start.

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/sharing_medical_software_foss_licensing_in_medicine

Please do not write your own license.

Let me know if you have further questions after reading.

-FT

On Dec 17, 2007 5:42 PM, Hemant Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Proteus (http://www.proteme.org) is an approach that allows authoring
> executable clinical processes and guidelines with decision support
> integrated within them.
>
> I am on the verge of making Proteus related tools available under an open
> source license. I need the advice of this community of open source
> champions
> on how to go about it and the choice of open source license. I know this
> has
> been discussed time and again on this list but I am still unclear about
> several things. Therefore please indulge my naiveté.
>
> I think LGPL provides most of what I need however I am still not clear
> about
> the use of derivative products. Specific example: what is there to prevent
> me from taking a class e.g, Person of an open source project and extend it
> by a class called SpecialPerson, and instead of adding the functionality
> that logically belongs in the Person class, enhance the SpecialPerson
> which
> I then keep closed source? By doing this one can easily violate the spirit
> and the intent of the license.
>
> My employer, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is supporting me in getting
> the
> Proteus tools open sourced. We have plans to use the open source version
> for
> research and to assist clinicians in patient care. Therefore significant
> development will take place after it has been open sourced. I have access
> to
> the HFHS legal department if needed. However, I need to know what help
> should I seek from them. Does it make sense to craft your own open source
> license instead of utilizing one of the standard ones?
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Hemant
>
> --
> Hemant Shah, M.D., M.Surg.
> Sr. Research Informatician
> Henry Ford Health System
> One Ford Place, 3C
> Detroit, MI 48202
>
>
> http://www.proteme.org
>
>
> [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]

[openhealth] Open Sourcing of Proteus Tools

[Hemant Shah]

Proteus (http://www.proteme.org) is an approach that allows authoring
executable clinical processes and guidelines with decision support
integrated within them.

I am on the verge of making Proteus related tools available under an open
source license. I need the advice of this community of open source champions
on how to go about it and the choice of open source license. I know this has
been discussed time and again on this list but I am still unclear about
several things. Therefore please indulge my naiveté.

I think LGPL provides most of what I need however I am still not clear about
the use of derivative products. Specific example: what is there to prevent
me from taking a class e.g, Person of an open source project and extend it
by a class called SpecialPerson, and instead of adding the functionality
that logically belongs in the Person class, enhance the SpecialPerson which
I then keep closed source? By doing this one can easily violate the spirit
and the intent of the license.

My employer, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) is supporting me in getting the
Proteus tools open sourced. We have plans to use the open source version for
research and to assist clinicians in patient care. Therefore significant
development will take place after it has been open sourced. I have access to
the HFHS legal department if needed. However, I need to know what help
should I seek from them. Does it make sense to craft your own open source
license instead of utilizing one of the standard ones?

Any advice will be appreciated.

Thanks,


Hemant

-- 
Hemant Shah, M.D., M.Surg.
Sr. Research Informatician
Henry Ford Health System
One Ford Place, 3C
Detroit, MI 48202


http://www.proteme.org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[openhealth] PatientOS 0.26 "Upgrade" released

[Greg Caulton]

PatientOS 0.26 "Upgrade" released

This version marks the start of upgrade support for installation by
providing a clean database and adding code to upgrade the database
schema, data contents, server and client.  Issues are now being logged
in Jira (http://www.patientos.org:8090).

Scheduling setup and configuration tools have been added to build
Resources and Appointment Types.  A new registration form was added
configured to streamline data entry.

A new utility for developers has been added to create applications.
The utility constructs a new dialog (menus, toolbars, panels,
controls, buttons, etc) based upon a template.  All GUI's are defined
in the database and the utility adds all the applicable rows.  A video
demonstrating the first version of this utility can be found
here(http://www.patientos.org/software/video_files/appointmenttypes/AppointmentTypeCreation.htm).

thanks

Greg

http://www.patientos.org