On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 14:59 -0500, Ignacio Valdes wrote:
> Information Week is reporting. "A federal appeals court has struck
> down a lower court ruling that found that open source copyrights may
> not be legally enforceable if they're licensed under terms that are
> "intentionally broad." Ruling
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 16:06 -0700, DAVY HOBSON wrote:
>
> I read your article online from 1999. The last few years I have been
> trying to come up with an idea to develope some type of disc or
> software that stores and displays the medications and allergies
> individuals have so that when they co
For your info, the word at the American Health Quality Assn meeting in
N. Orleans next week was, "The lack of a lab interface torpedoed
deployment of Vista Office at some of our (CMS) beta sites."
Dan Johnson
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 10:59 -0500, K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
> VistA Office EHR SemiVivA 2.3.
VistA Office is *public domain* -- not *open source* -- in the sense
that OSS implies open access and collaborative development, neither of
which has ever been true for VistA -- but VistA is required to be
available openly and freely because it's the product of US taxpayer
funding.
But... this is
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 23:37 +0100, Thomas Beale wrote:
> Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
> > Will,
> >
> > > why not let the process proceed and see what the results of the votes
> > > are?
> >
> > Agreed. I have voiced similar concerns about the current process to the
> > protem and am comfortable goin
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 05:59 -0700, Will Ross wrote:
> ... isn't it moot to discuss a result before completing the process?
An interesting usage of a word that's evolving, as the etymology
includes the idea of a meeting, and in legal jargon it means
'discussable' or 'debatable.' Many people in
