On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 13:06 +0530, Suchi Pande wrote:
> Todd Berman wrote:
>
As much as I disagree with what you are saying (Flashroms updates (this
is where the FSF wins) are distributed binary, so you do need to
distribute the source)(There are companies today shipping network
appliances using
Todd Berman wrote:
Yes. However, the risk for a BSD licenced software is that the
freedom of the developers is at risk if a company forks off a closed
version and adds proprietary bits to it, and tries to extinguish the
old standard. It has happened enough times with MS windows
applications tak
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 09:00 -0600, Cameron Schlehuber wrote:
> And as for the examples of hiding code in an "appliance" and selling -that-,
> well, if I sold a PC as an "appliance" with Windows XP and didn't forward
> the license fees to Microsoft, and made a big enough splash that got
> Microsoft
Mike,
Not only that, but you will have a true sense of the value you get
should you choose to purchase the work or assistance later.
One thing to keep in mind is that in some cases, "if you think it
expensive to have a professional do the job, just try it with amateurs".
What this can
Hi,
It is my understanding that individuals cannot put something into the
public domain themselves... the law is such that one cannot give up
the rights to the rights... so, time has to be the worker of the magic
(to points 1 and 2 below). If I were to try, I am merely "littering".
A simple summ
at was in the black box.
Cameron.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd
Berman
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:10 AM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD,SOFTWARE
Exactly! A more eloquent statement of my point. I like the neighbor
analogy, since this list serves that purpose admirably. So, I'm off to
configure Vista.
K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
Mike --
I am entirely sympathetic to your plight. In Pennsylvania where I live,
doctors in droves are retiring or m
My apologies to all. I didn't mean to post information of a commercial
nature on a technical mailing list. I thought I had deleted
hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net from the recipient list, but
obviously I hadn't. Again, sorry.
-- Bhaskar
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 05:57 -0500, Bhaskar, KS wro
Mike --
I am entirely sympathetic to your plight. In Pennsylvania where I live,
doctors in droves are retiring or moving elsewhere for these reasons.
That said, your post makes a strong case in a different way for the use
of open source free software - with OSFS, you have the choice of doing
it
Bhaskar,
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that the concept of paid support is
wrong. But, developers can operate within a 'business model' and set a
price for your services based on your costs. Those of us in medicine
don't have that option. All of our reimbursements are limited, either by
l
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Todd Berman
Sent: Thu 9/22/2005 3:10 AM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Subject:RE: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD,SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO, PHYSICIAN OFFICES
On Thu, 2005
support.
Regards
-- Bhaskar
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kevin Toppenberg
Sent: Wed 9/21/2005 8:01 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
Subject:Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD,
SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO
Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD,
SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO, PHYSICIAN OFFICES
Where can I find prices?
Kevin
<>
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 13:19 +0530, Suchi Pande wrote:
> I wrote:
> >>Open source is usually one of two licence styles. BSD style and GPL style.
>
> Todd Berman wrote:
> > But for sure, there are for more styles of licenses than those 2.
>
>
> More explicitly, I am saying that all open source lic
I wrote:
Open source is usually one of two licence styles. BSD style and GPL style.
Todd Berman wrote:
But for sure, there are for more styles of licenses than those 2.
Absolutely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_licenses
I am not saying licences are either BSD or GPL. I am s
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 00:02 -0600, Cameron Schlehuber wrote:
> If someone takes "Little Red Riding Hood" and just changes the word "Red"
> wherever it shows up to "Green", then claims a copyright of some kind or
> another on it, and someone else changes every other word "Red" to "Green"
> (half red
they shouldn't be permitted to distribute
such a tar-baby either.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory
Woodhouse
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:19 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-
I assume that means software *other* than possibly modified versions
of VistA. I still find the concept of trying to release a version of
VistA under GPL troubling.
Now, if WorldVistA were to develop a new pediatrics module, new HL7
infrastructure, new PM or billing software and release *th
Todd Berman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 10:33 -0700, Greg Woodhouse wrote:
>
>>I don't think that follows. Being available through FOIA doesn't imply
>>a GPL style license.
FOIA implies public domain. That is do anything you want with it.
...and excludes GPL.
My understanding from previous th
Wendell Murray wrote:
> I'm not privy to the whatever machinations might exist behind the scenes at
> HHS in regard to the release of VOE. The important fact is that it has been
> released and people can start doing things with it.
>
The fact is it <> been released.
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:26 -0700, Jim Self wrote:
> Todd Berman wrote:
> >If I am writing a program under a non-GPL compat license (and this does
> >not mean commercial, there are plenty of popular OSI compat licenses
> >that are not GPL compat, like the Apache License for example). I can not
> >u
Todd Berman wrote:
>If I am writing a program under a non-GPL compat license (and this does
>not mean commercial, there are plenty of popular OSI compat licenses
>that are not GPL compat, like the Apache License for example). I can not
>use a GPL library or application.
That interpretation seems t
Where can I find prices?
Kevin
On 9/21/05, K.S. Bhaskar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike --I can't speak for VistA, but at least for GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux, thereis no requirement to purchase support.
I would hope, however, that if you were using it successfully, you wouldpurchase a support contr
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:39 -0400, K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 11:45 -0500, Todd Berman wrote:
>
> [KSB] <...snip...>
> >
> > No. That is *WHAT* Public Domain means. It means anyone can take
> > anything and do anything with it. Which is why CMS can take
>
> [KSB] Not to pick n
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 11:45 -0500, Todd Berman wrote:
[KSB] <...snip...>
>
> No. That is *WHAT* Public Domain means. It means anyone can take
> anything and do anything with it. Which is why CMS can take
[KSB] Not to pick nits, but this is not strictly true. For example, I
can't take a listin
Mike --
I can't speak for VistA, but at least for GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux, there
is no requirement to purchase support.
I would hope, however, that if you were using it successfully, you would
purchase a support contract because that's what funds ongoing
development of GT.M on x86 GNU/Linux, and is
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 12:26 -0700, Jim Self wrote:
> Todd Berman wrote:
> >The other thing that BSD code allows you to do that you are missing is
> >it actually allowed greater *developer* freedom.
>
> Please explain. As I understand it, the only thing lost to developers in
> using the GPL is
> t
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 22:20 -0500, Suchi Pande wrote:
[KSB] <...snip...>
>
> However, one catch is that there is no warranty in GPL licenced code
> (essentially because there is no fixed vendor).
[KSB] This is not quite true. A company may well offer a warranty for a
piece of GPL'd software i
nsaje original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de Chris
Richardson
Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Septiembre de 2005 11:52 a.m.
Para: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Asunto: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD,SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO, PHY
Todd Berman wrote:
>The other thing that BSD code allows you to do that you are missing is
>it actually allowed greater *developer* freedom.
Please explain. As I understand it, the only thing lost to developers in using
the GPL is
the freedom to hide the source code for the applications they dist
re de Chris
Richardson
Enviado el: Miércoles, 21 de Septiembre de 2005 11:52 a.m.
Para: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Asunto: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD,SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO, PHYSICIAN OFFICES
Gentlemen;
Please be aware that there are some additions
model has shown time and time again.
- Original Message -
From: "Todd Berman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD,SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO, PHYSICIAN OFFICES
> On Wed,
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 10:33 -0700, Greg Woodhouse wrote:
> I don't think that follows. Being available through FOIA doesn't imply
> a GPL style license.
Absolutely.
As an aside, has there been any confirmation that VOE will be released
into the public domain, or under any OSI compat license?
--
I don't think that follows. Being available through FOIA doesn't imply
a GPL style license.
--- "Dr. Schrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not opposed to allowing authors of proprietary software to have
> free rein
> to market their software and support as aggressively as their
> business eth
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 12:25 -0400, Dr. Schrom wrote:
> I'm not opposed to allowing authors of proprietary software to have free rein
> to market their software and support as aggressively as their business ethics
> allows. VistA is in the public domain under FOIA, therefore CMS really
> shouldn'
I'm not opposed to allowing authors of proprietary software to have free rein
to market their software and support as aggressively as their business ethics
allows. VistA is in the public domain under FOIA, therefore CMS really shouldn't
have the right to release a derivative of it (i.e. Vista-of
On 9/21/05, Todd Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think the way forward for the VISTA-office people is to require an
> > indemnity from anyone who wants to install it on their own without
> > support from a certified vendor.
> >
>
> This is implicitly given due to any rational licensing ter
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 08:50 +0530, Suchi Pande wrote:
> ELSIE CASUGAY wrote:
> > This whole thing VISTA-OFFICE is entirely unfair not only to the physicians
> > but also to vendors. I feel like it is being controlled by some group. This
> > VA software is FOIA and supposed to be open source but I
ELSIE CASUGAY wrote:
This whole thing VISTA-OFFICE is entirely unfair not only to the physicians
but also to vendors. I feel like it is being controlled by some group. This
VA software is FOIA and supposed to be open source but I have to take a test
now if I want to support a physician's office.
ubject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
SOFTWARE DELIVERED TO, PHYSICIAN OFFICES
This whole thing VISTA-OFFICE is entirely unfair not only to the physicians
but also to vendors. I feel like it is being controlled by some group. This
VA software is FOIA and supposed to be o
ably do
it without VISTA-OFFICE software anyway.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dr.
Schrom
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:05 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Hardhats-members] Re: CMS NEWS: ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECOR
This headline is extremely misleading. Vista-Office is not being
'delivered to physician offices'. Does anyone else think that it is VERY
unfair to only provide the Beta test through commercial vendors? My
office would otherwise qualify for the test, had I not wasted 15 years
and countless thou
42 matches
Mail list logo
