My comments over the past few days are in response to Fred's new initiative in
which I thought they may have come up with a novel way bridge the
FOSS-proprietary divide. I was mistaken. Nevertheless, since I still believe in
FOSS and in promoting low cost/resource conserving solutions for better
fred,
two things.
1. i do not have any problem with the cchit certification of
proprietary software packages. it primarily does not apply to me, so
i can tune it out. the part of their message that i am listening to
is their evolving concept about open source certification. i am
looking for
Steve,
I went back and re-read your blog to see if your thinking had evolved
with something new but it does not seem to have changed.
You want to 'open source' your software but keep part of it patented.
It's nice that you are interested in FOSS but it doesn't work that
way. If you want it to be
I didn't think you were pointing to me, Fred, but I do thank you anyway for
clarifying.
To follow up on Alvin's comment, I have several other programs I'm considering
licensing as FOSS, but the functions that I believe would be most useful to the
FOSS community consist of a radical/disruptive
Hi all,
We're a small university-based research group with a FOSS EHR (for govt
health facilities).
Are there sites/resources for business models on how such FOSS apps can
prosper (economically), where the principles of FOSS are respected but where
the 'investments' of the original team are also
I was speaking to patent-holders generally, and not you personally. The
negotiations we have had together are the template for how a patent-holder
and a community might potentially work together. Should not have used 'you'
in this context. Sorry.
-FT
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Stephen Beller
Although it's easy to resent your implication of duplicity (trickery), I do
understand your practical, though rigid, position.
Thanks,
Steve
--- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, fred trotter wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Beller wrote:
>
> > Fred,
> >
> > This is encouraging
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Beller wrote:
> Fred,
>
> This is encouraging and I wish you great success!
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1. How do you define "hybrid vendors" and distinguish them from FOSS
> vendors?
Anyone who makes money by supporting FOSS AND by selling proprietary health
** humming supportively in the background **
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
-Original Message-
From: fred trotter
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 15:45:18
To:
Cc: ; Hardhats
Subject: [openhealth] Re: Liberty HSF formation process
Everyone I have talked to in the FOSS
Everyone I have talked to in the FOSS community has indicated that the
feature-bucket testing model that CCHIT currently puts forward does not work
for us.
I would like to work with CCHIT, but not under the constraints of accepting
aspects of the current model that are broken.
If anyone in our co
Fred,
This is encouraging and I wish you great success!
Two questions:
1. How do you define "hybrid vendors" and distinguish them from FOSS vendors?
2. What roll, if any, do you see for companies having patented methodologies?
Thanks,
Steve Beller
--- In openhealth@yahoogroups.com, fred
11 matches
Mail list logo