>
> I agree. In fact I personally recommended a well known IP attorney in
> this area.
What would be best is someone who understands tax laws and not for
profits, that's where the land mines are.
Joseph
Tim Cook wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> Nice to talk to you again.
>
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 16:
Hi Sam,
Nice to talk to you again.
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 16:09 +, sickleofzeus wrote:
> Dear Tim,
>
> We are listening and I am definitely reading your comments. You have
> very good thoughts and are contributing to this discussion in a very
> thoughtful manner (as is usual for you). I apolo
Dear Tim,
We are listening and I am definitely reading your comments. You have
very good thoughts and are contributing to this discussion in a very
thoughtful manner (as is usual for you). I apologize if my comments
here seem antagonistic. That is not my intention. I am not trying to
tear this
Replying to Sam Bowen:
...
> For me it was a marriage of necessity since no one else in
> the FOSS medical software community was taking me very seriously.
That is unfortunate, perhaps if I had recognized the potential I might
have paid more attention and acted differently.
> If we are quoting
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 12:03, Fred Trotter wrote:
...
> Keep in mind that FMSF, in whatever method we use to make it, will
> hopefully be sponsoring development
...
> we would hope to work with organizations
> like WebReach or ClearHealth or a development oriented foundation to
> get specific
Dear Fred,
I am not pretending when I stated that Open Source Medical Software
was created to serve this purpose. This language was and is in the
OSMS incorporation documents and part of the Bylaws.After many
months of not attracting attention to the OSMS project I did invite a
number of acti
>
> Fred, you originally characterized MirrorMed as a "friendly fork of
> ClearHealth."
I am still comfortable with that.
> Regardless of how you characterize it now, or what you
> might hypothetically do in the future, it seems to me the point still
> remains that today you have a special inter
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 08:34, Fred Trotter wrote:
> > [Sam wrote]: Obviously, using your own non-conflict-of-interest policy, you
> > do not
> > qualify for your own Board of Directors.
>
> I should hope that I am ideal for the Board of Directors. My current
> idea is not to include project
Greetings,
I am not a developer, nor do I know much about open source in healthcare.
I would like to point to CCHIT as an example of an organization formed by
the leading commercial vendors that was received with great mistrust and
lambasted for the expensive certification requirements it introdu
Sam,
Obviously, I disagree with you on several points.
> OSMS is exactly what you are proposing with this new organization.
> The main difference is that Fred Trotter trusts Fred Trotter to do the
> right thing but not the rest of us.
That is an assumption. Perhaps I have other motivat
> it's difficult to say who would best serve on BoD or BoA
I agree that OSMS is strongly associated with the OpenEMR project but
that is not fixed in stone. I also agree with Fred Trotter that a
project neutral organization will be good for all the FOSS medical
software projects.
Fred or Ignacio
>
> it's difficult to say who would best serve on BoD or BoA
Dear Fred,
I don't want this to sound mean spirited (or self serving) but there
is of course an obvious, significant, conflict of interest to your
proposal.
Are you going the on the Board of Directors or the Board of Advisors
for thi
Hi Paul,
On Sun, 2008-02-17 at 22:32 +, Paul wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree with this and would go a step further to say
> that building the organization before you have the software or
> collaborative "nidus" seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
But there *IS* the nest. It is t
I wholeheartedly agree with this and would go a step further to say
that building the organization before you have the software or
collaborative "nidus" seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
The nature in which a non-profit evolves from an open source
collaborative effort is a complicated
14 matches
Mail list logo
