Fred Trotter wrote:
> The software in question was not VistA at all. It was developed internally
> at Medsphere. We are simply talking about a company that placed an "open
> source" offering on sourceforge and then, dramatically, had the software
> removed.
>
> They have since released one of the
Tim Cook wrote:
> JohnLeo Zimmer, MD wrote:
> .
>> Thus, Medsphere's GPL license can be applied only to the <>
>> between OpenVista server and FOIA VistA. (Likewise, any modifications
>> World Vista makes to VistA.)
>>
>> IMHO, of course,
>> jlz
>
> I don't believe so. Public domain software CAN
JohnLeo Zimmer, MD wrote:
.
>
> Thus, Medsphere's GPL license can be applied only to the <>
> between OpenVista server and FOIA VistA. (Likewise, any modifications
> World Vista makes to VistA.)
>
> IMHO, of course,
> jlz
I don't believe so. Public domain software CAN be re-released under
ANY
The software in question was not VistA at all. It was developed internally
at Medsphere. We are simply talking about a company that placed an "open
source" offering on sourceforge and then, dramatically, had the software
removed.
They have since released one of the items they yanked under an "open
On Mar 6, 2007, at 4:51 AM, JohnLeo Zimmer, MD wrote:
> Thus, Medsphere's GPL license can be applied only to the
> <>
> between OpenVista server and FOIA VistA. (Likewise, any modifications
> World Vista makes to VistA.)
Unfortunately, I don't think that's really feasible. It's rather like
t
Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
>
> I don't see how it clarifies your reference to the "original
> license". VistA is in the public domain in the sense that it may be
> obtained though FOIA. That's not the same as being licensed under an
> open source license. Indeed, speaking as a non-lawyer, I do
