Adrian Midgley wrote:
> Lapsing from copyright doesn't seem to have applied to any program code,
> yet, or has it?
Jacquard loom punch cards (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom), perhaps pianola rolls?
Tim C
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-->
Ch
Franklin M. Siler wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, but you're both wrong. "Public Domain" is,
> roughly, the lack of copyright
which cannot occur _accidentally_. (At least now, in the UK).
> , and occurs as a result of several
> several circumstances:
> 1) the work is by a public body, such as th
On Jun 24, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Adrian Midgley wrote:
> Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
> ...
>
> >"Public Domain" is a bit tricky on the legal front,
> No. (IANAL, but it is not tricky, and doubly not on that front)
I'm not a lawyer, but you're both wrong. "Public Domain" is,
roughly, the lack of co
Tim Cook wrote:
> The problem with VistA is the disconnect between the discussions here
> about it being "open" and the FACT that it is not licensed and
> maintained under an open source license. In fact according to Dan
> Johnson there has been at least one incidence where a group was
> "prohibit
Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
> I agree with Tim. VistA has a lot going for it, but there are some good fully
> FOSS projects that can be developed further. They are build on modern
> languages and well established FOSS - like LAMP. The end users are more IT
> literate now than at the time VistA sta
Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
...
>"Public Domain" is a bit tricky on the legal front,
No. (IANAL, but it is not tricky, and doubly not on that front)
>as legally it is owned by the US Public,
No.
>and therefore, the US government.
No (and to digress, I'm no American but I understand the publishd mod
On 6/23/06, Gregory Woodhouse wrote:
> Not being a lawyer, I'll ask a naive question: It's one thing to
> choose to license your own work under GPL, but why would anyone think
> they could make another person's work into something licensed under
> GPL? If they can, is it right? (Okay, that's two qu
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 23, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
Not being a lawyer, I'll ask a naive question: It's one thing to
choose to license your own work under GPL, but why would anyone think
they could make ano
On Jun 23, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Nandalal Gunaratne wrote:
> What type of open source licence is likely to be used for these
> implementations? "Public Domain" is a bit tricky on the legal
> front, as legally it is owned by the US Public, and therefore, the
> US government. They could refuse ce
Thanks Joseph, for the clarification. It is good to know that the value of the
open source model is becoming more accepted and that in the future, GUI based
versions of VistA too, will be open source.
What type of open source licence is likely to be used for these
implementations? "Public Do
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed it is confusing to have many versions of VistA, but it is even more
worrying as their usage begins. Implementing VistA outside the USA is going to
be quite tricky. Getting a good law firm involved to look into the possible
copyright/patent
Corrections below.
-- Bhaskar
On 06/22/2006 12:36 AM, Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
[KSB] <...snip...>
> ~ FOIA VistA (the version released under the Freedom of Information Act
> by the VA) is public domain software and as such the source code is free
> to be downloaded and used in any way you want.
thanks Tim
> The information you gave us in this email isn't really on the worldvista
> web site. At least not in a manner I could piece together. If that info
> could be massaged into a roadmap of sorts others might find it
helpful too.
>
...great idea, and well timedit is some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
> Hopefully the following facts about VistA and VistA-Office (VOE) will
> set the record straight about their claim to "openness":
>
Thanks for that Joseph. Your explanations as well as a review of the
press releases at Worl
Hopefully the following facts about VistA and VistA-Office (VOE) will
set the record straight about their claim to "openness":
First a couple of points of clarification: WorldVistA, not I, was
awarded the tender by the Iowa Foundation for Medical Care in May of
last year to establish the VistA-
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:54 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
I'd really rather let someone from WorldVistA address your specific
points, but I think you're confusing VistA (which is in the public
domain), with VistA Office EHR (VOE), which is not the same thing.
I'll grant that it's a bit con
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Greg,
Your analysis of the raw materials is of course correct. However, that
is not the issue with VistA. From all accounts it is an outstanding
EMR. Also, I like the fact that VistA uses a hierarchical data storage
model (I am assuming this is
--- Nandalal Gunaratne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Tim. VistA has a lot going for it, but there are some
> good fully FOSS projects that can be developed further. They are
> build on modern languages and well established FOSS - like LAMP. The
> end users are more IT literate now th
I agree with Tim. VistA has a lot going for it, but there are some good fully
FOSS projects that can be developed further. They are build on modern languages
and well established FOSS - like LAMP. The end users are more IT literate now
than at the time VistA started, and would like to be able to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Dan,
Please note that this reply must be assumed to NOT be sarcastic.
Just my (hopefully) reasoned, if pointed, opinion.
Daniel L. Johnson wrote:
>
> But... this is our best hope for non-proprietary EHR software in the
> USA, and is worth pursuin
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
