It seems that this message didn't make it to the openhealth list. apologies
if did and this is a repeat.
Tim Churches
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1 Dec 2007 12:57
Subject: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
Likewise - apologies if this is a repeat.
Tim C
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1 Dec 2007 17:08
Subject: Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
Last message forwarded to openhealth list.
Tim C
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tim Churches [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1 Dec 2007 17:03
Subject: Re: [openhealth] Re: [oshca_members] OSHCA's Aims and Objectives
To: OSHCA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: openhealth@yahoogroups.com
Molly Cheah wrote:
No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly,
PCDOM was being careful of building up its business model and its
strategic alliances with organisations to ensure sustainability and
accountability issues which are being built into its PCDOM PrimaCare
On 12/01/2007 12:18 AM, Molly Cheah wrote:
No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly,
[KSB] If (former US President) Bill Clinton could raise an ambiguity
about the word is, there is probably room for interpretation of open
source. Here are some places to read
Many of us wear multiple hats. 90% of the time, it does not matter
which hat we are wearing, but it is critical to clarify which hat is
being worn when speaking if there is the possibility of ambiguity.
Also, it is not actual ambiguity in our minds that matters - it is the
potential for
Molly Cheah wrote:
Dear all,
In view of the type of posts to these lists and that I do not wish to be
drawn to the same type of exchanges that led to the demise of OSHCA from
2003-2006, I would like to make the following statement. Besides, I do
not have the time, interest and energy to do
Thanks for the clarification that Primacare is not open source.
Regards,
Tim
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 12:57 +1100, Tim Churches wrote:
Molly Cheah wrote:
Dear all,
In view of the type of posts to these lists and that I do not wish
to be
drawn to the same type of exchanges that led to the
No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly,
PCDOM was being careful of building up its business model and its
strategic alliances with organisations to ensure sustainability and
accountability issues which are being built into its PCDOM PrimaCare
Public License; one
And Tim, please do me a favour by emailing the Hon Secretary of PCDOM at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than stating on these mailing lists and tell
them that you believe that PCDOM's promotion of PrimaCare as an open
source tool is not correct, thus implying that PCDOM is unethical.
Molly
Molly
Molly Cheah wrote:
No Tim. That was Tims' intepretation of what is open source. Frankly,
PCDOM was being careful of building up its business model and its
strategic alliances with organisations to ensure sustainability and
accountability issues which are being built into its PCDOM PrimaCare
Molly Cheah wrote:
And Tim, please do me a favour by emailing the Hon Secretary of PCDOM at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] rather than stating on these mailing lists and tell
them that you believe that PCDOM's promotion of PrimaCare as an open
source tool is not correct, thus implying that PCDOM is
Tim,
We got a good glimpse of a position from Molly Cheah. How about yourself?
p.s. I'm very reasonable, but curious.
Cheers,
Mike
Tim Churches wrote:
Molly Cheah wrote:
And Tim, please do me a favour by emailing the Hon Secretary of PCDOM at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
13 matches
Mail list logo
