From martin at inflection-technologies.com Thu Nov 1 21:52:17 2007 From: martin at inflection-technologies.com (Martin Peacock) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Open Source PACS Message-ID: <110619.90232.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi folks. Just wanted to say we have begun work on a new Open Source PACS. To say it is in embryonic form at the moment is an understatement, but we would welcome feedback even at this early stage.We have a blog here (ad-free zone) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071101/9673723b/attachment.htm From caultonpos at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 22:02:35 2007 From: caultonpos at gmail.com (Greg Caulton) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Open Source PACS In-Reply-To: <110619.90232.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <110619.90232.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That's great to hear Martin, without knowing your timelines I would still like to offer help with your HIS integration testing. I should have an hospital system up and running later next year with which we could test integration (pre-fetching images based upon orders or scheduling, viewing images within an external system etc). thanks Greg http://www.patientos.org On 11/1/07, Martin Peacock wrote: > Hi folks. Just wanted to say we have begun work on a new Open Source PACS. > To say it is in embryonic form at the moment is an understatement, but we > would welcome feedback even at this early stage.We have a blog here > (ad-free zone) > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > From fred.trotter at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 22:17:01 2007 From: fred.trotter at gmail.com (Fred Trotter) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Open Source PACS In-Reply-To: <110619.90232.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <110619.90232.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I would recommend that you attend the next WorldVistA conference. VA VistA generally needs a defacto open source PACS solution, and you will find yourself very welcome. -FT On 11/1/07, Martin Peacock wrote: > Hi folks. Just wanted to say we have begun work on a new Open Source PACS. > To say it is in embryonic form at the moment is an understatement, but we > would welcome feedback even at this early stage.We have a blog here > (ad-free zone) > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com From martin at inflection-technologies.com Thu Nov 1 22:38:34 2007 From: martin at inflection-technologies.com (Martin Peacock) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Open Source PACS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <958375.39343.qm@web411.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Many thanks for the offer Greg. That may well be feasible. the handful we have involved are hoping to take the project full-time as soon as possible, in which case we'll be in a better position to say but at the moment we're kindof finding our feet. Martin Greg Caulton wrote: That's great to hear Martin, without knowing your timelines I would still like to offer help with your HIS integration testing. I should have an hospital system up and running later next year with which we could test integration (pre-fetching images based upon orders or scheduling, viewing images within an external system etc). thanks Greg http://www.patientos.org On 11/1/07, Martin Peacock wrote: > Hi folks. Just wanted to say we have begun work on a new Open Source PACS. > To say it is in embryonic form at the moment is an understatement, but we > would welcome feedback even at this early stage.We have a blog here > (ad-free zone) > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > _______________________________________________ FOSS_health mailing list FOSS_health@oshca.org http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071101/e3976eba/attachment.html From tom.jones at tolvenhealth.com Fri Nov 2 01:06:31 2007 From: tom.jones at tolvenhealth.com (Tom Jones) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Open Source PACS In-Reply-To: <110619.90232.qm@web413.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008b01c81ca9$8d92ad70$7738f20a@TMJLAPTOP> Do your efforts have anything to do with http://www.dcm4che.org/, which appears to be a well-established group working in this area. Tom Tom Jones, MD Chief Medical Officer, Tolven Sonoma, CA www.tolven.org www.tolvenhealth.com 707 695 5712 (mobile) 707 939 7845 (office) _____ From: foss_health-bounces@oshca.org [mailto:foss_health-bounces@oshca.org] On Behalf Of Martin Peacock Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:52 AM To: FOSS_health@oshca.org Subject: [FOSS_health] Open Source PACS Hi folks. Just wanted to say we have begun work on a new Open Source PACS. To say it is in embryonic form at the moment is an understatement, but we would welcome feedback even at this early stage.We have a blog here (ad-free zone) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071101/294c0908/attachment.htm From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Mon Nov 5 22:31:14 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] [Fwd: [os-wg] Introduction to WorldVistA EHR System Administration Education Conference Dec 7-9th, 2007] Message-ID: <1194273074.3835.76.camel@oship> FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Ignacio Valdes To: os-wg Subject: [os-wg] Introduction to WorldVistA EHR System Administration Education Conference Dec 7-9th, 2007 Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 07:59:12 -0600 There will be an intensive 3 day weekend class for would be implementors/system administrators for VistA/WorldVistA EHR December 7-9th in Houston, Texas. Details here: http://hchic.org/events-1/intro-wvehr-sys-admin _______________________________________________ os-wg mailing list os-wg@mailman.amia.org http://mailman.amia.org/mailman/listinfo/os-wg -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Sat Nov 10 12:17:55 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL Message-ID: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> Dear all, MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the Malaysian Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December 2007. I had been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as representative of OSHCA. In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition and OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS products and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to take the opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some information on the exhibition: Exhibition Goals: - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to demonstrate the readiness of the ICT industry to support the implementation of the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Programme and also to encourage increased growth in the local OSS industry and community. The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It should be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, solutions and services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured products. It should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and proprietary products. I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity to "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. Rgds, Molly From tanboonteck at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 15:31:16 2007 From: tanboonteck at gmail.com (Jason Tan Boon Teck) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: Dear Molly, We are interested to participate in the exhibition, to promote PCDOM PrimaCare. Regards, Jason Tan Boon Teck On Nov 10, 2007 12:17 PM, Molly Cheah wrote: > Dear all, > MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning > Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the Malaysian > Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December 2007. I had > been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business > Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as representative of > OSHCA. > > In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition and > OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS products > and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to take the > opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some information > on the exhibition: > > > Exhibition Goals: > > - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be > potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to demonstrate > the readiness of the ICT industry to support the implementation of the > Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Programme and also to > encourage increased growth in the local OSS industry and community. > > The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It should > be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, solutions and > services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured products. It > should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and proprietary > products. > > I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity to > "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. > > Rgds, > Molly > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > -- Jason Tan Boon Teck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071110/a1993c46/attachment.html From tim.churches at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 15:36:29 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> On 10/11/2007, Jason Tan Boon Teck wrote: > Dear Molly, > > > We are interested to participate in the exhibition, to promote PCDOM > PrimaCare. Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from whom can I obtain a copy of its source code? Tim C > On Nov 10, 2007 12:17 PM, Molly Cheah < drcheah@pc.jaring.my> wrote: > > Dear all, > > MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning > > Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the Malaysian > > Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December 2007. I had > > been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business > > Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as representative of > OSHCA. > > > > In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition and > > OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS products > > and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to take the > > opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some information > > on the exhibition: > > > > > > Exhibition Goals: > > > > - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be > > potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to demonstrate > > the readiness of the ICT industry to support the implementation of the > > Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Programme and also to > > encourage increased growth in the local OSS industry and community. > > > > The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It should > > be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, solutions and > > services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured products. It > > should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and proprietary > > products. > > > > I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity to > > "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. > > > > Rgds, > > Molly > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > -- > Jason Tan Boon Teck > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > From hmgoh at amorphous.com.my Sat Nov 10 22:51:54 2007 From: hmgoh at amorphous.com.my (Dr HM Goh) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> Molly, Do you have the official URL and programme? -----Original Message----- From: foss_health-bounces@oshca.org [mailto:foss_health-bounces@oshca.org] On Behalf Of Molly Cheah Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:18 PM To: FOSS_health@oshca.org; OSHCA Members List Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL Dear all, MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the Malaysian Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December 2007. I had been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as representative of OSHCA. In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition and OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS products and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to take the opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some information on the exhibition: Exhibition Goals: - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to demonstrate the readiness of the ICT industry to support the implementation of the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Programme and also to encourage increased growth in the local OSS industry and community. The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It should be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, solutions and services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured products. It should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and proprietary products. I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity to "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. Rgds, Molly _______________________________________________ FOSS_health mailing list FOSS_health@oshca.org http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 00:05:41 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> Message-ID: <1194710741.4279.2.camel@oship> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 22:51 +0800, Dr HM Goh wrote: > The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It should > be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, solutions and > services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured products. It > should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and proprietary > products. Does this mean that there will be proprietary software being demonstrated as well? -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Sun Nov 11 18:55:11 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> Message-ID: <4736DF8F.1000006@pc.jaring.my> HM, Here it is. http://mygosscon.oscc.org.my/ Molly Dr HM Goh wrote: > Molly, > Do you have the official URL and programme? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: foss_health-bounces@oshca.org [mailto:foss_health-bounces@oshca.org] > On Behalf Of Molly Cheah > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:18 PM > To: FOSS_health@oshca.org; OSHCA Members List > Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL > > Dear all, > MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning > Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the Malaysian > Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December 2007. I had > been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business > Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as representative of OSHCA. > > In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition and > OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS products > and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to take the > opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some information > on the exhibition: > > > Exhibition Goals: > > - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be > potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to demonstrate > the readiness of the ICT industry to support the implementation of the > Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software Programme and also to > encourage increased growth in the local OSS industry and community. > > The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It should > be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, solutions and > services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured products. It > should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and proprietary > products. > > I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity to > "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. > > Rgds, > Molly > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > From dalmolin at e-cology.ca Sun Nov 11 23:24:04 2007 From: dalmolin at e-cology.ca (Joseph Dal Molin) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [oshca_members] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <4736DF8F.1000006@pc.jaring.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> <4736DF8F.1000006@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <47371E94.1030104@e-cology.ca> Criteria To Qualify As An Exhibitor: * Must showcase and demonstrate OSS products and/or services. * Can showcase interoperability solutions between OSS and proprietary platform and solutions. * Must be attended by 3 exhibit personnels with office attire. * Must be able to provide short talks at the common stage (exhibitors will take turns to provide this talk which will run throughout the exhibition time). * Must fully utilize the exhibition booth of 3 meter by 3 meter with relevant collaterals and displays. * OSS solutions suitable for Public Sector use are encouraged to be demonstrated. * Must demonstrate that they can fulfill the requirement for quality display, exhibit and demonstration. Molly....any ideas on how this would work for those that cannot send people to KL? Who would be working the booth for OSHCA and how would they represent other FOSS products? Joseph Molly Cheah wrote: > HM, > Here it is. http://mygosscon.oscc.org.my/ > > Molly > Dr HM Goh wrote: >> Molly, Do you have the official URL and programme? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: foss_health-bounces@oshca.org >> [mailto:foss_health-bounces@oshca.org] >> On Behalf Of Molly Cheah >> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:18 PM >> To: FOSS_health@oshca.org; OSHCA Members List >> Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL >> >> Dear all, >> MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning >> Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the Malaysian >> Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December 2007. I had >> been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business >> Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as representative of >> OSHCA. >> >> In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition >> and OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS >> products and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to >> take the opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some >> information on the exhibition: >> >> >> Exhibition Goals: >> >> - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be >> potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to >> demonstrate the readiness of the ICT industry to support the >> implementation of the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software >> Programme and also to encourage increased growth in the local OSS >> industry and community. >> >> The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It >> should be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, >> solutions and services, ranging from emerging technologies to matured >> products. It should also demonstrate interoperability between OSS and >> proprietary products. >> >> I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity to >> "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. >> >> Rgds, >> Molly >> _______________________________________________ >> FOSS_health mailing list >> FOSS_health@oshca.org >> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FOSS_health mailing list >> FOSS_health@oshca.org >> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > oshca_members mailing list > oshca_members@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members > . > From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Mon Nov 12 06:54:41 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [oshca_members] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <47371E94.1030104@e-cology.ca> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> <4736DF8F.1000006@pc.jaring.my> <47371E94.1030104@e-cology.ca> Message-ID: <47378831.7000101@pc.jaring.my> Frankly I have no idea as yet. Jason and I will also be busy with the PANACeA workshop at the same time as the exhibition. I'm sure we can work out something after we've accepted the offer. Maybe something along the line of OSHCA's participation in Geneva for the WSIS at the CERN booth? If exhibitors send me their pamphlets for distribution and posters to put up, that will be easier for me to organise. Hopefully some local OSHCA members will volunteer and/or I'll probably mobilise some local open source advocates and doctors/medical students to man the booth. I'm only taking time off to do my presentation, but may pop in to oversee the booth setup. Molly Joseph Dal Molin wrote: > > Molly....any ideas on how this would work for those that cannot send > people to KL? Who would be working the booth for OSHCA and how would > they represent other FOSS products? > > Joseph > > > Molly Cheah wrote: >> HM, >> Here it is. http://mygosscon.oscc.org.my/ >> >> Molly >> Dr HM Goh wrote: >>> Molly, Do you have the official URL and programme? >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: foss_health-bounces@oshca.org >>> [mailto:foss_health-bounces@oshca.org] >>> On Behalf Of Molly Cheah >>> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:18 PM >>> To: FOSS_health@oshca.org; OSHCA Members List >>> Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL >>> >>> Dear all, >>> MAMPU (Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management >>> Planning Unit) of the Prima Minister's Department is organising the >>> Malaysian Government Open Source Software Conference on 6-7 December >>> 2007. I had been invited to present a paper "The OSS Revolution - >>> Driving Business Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry" as >>> representative of OSHCA. >>> >>> In conjuction with the conference, MAMPU is organising an exhibition >>> and OSHCA had also been invited to showcase its (members') OSS >>> products and/or services during those 2 days. Anyone who wishes to >>> take the opportunity please contact me directly offline. Here's some >>> information on the exhibition: >>> >>> >>> Exhibition Goals: >>> >>> - to showcase the OSS products, solutions and services that can be >>> potentially used by the Public Sector. The exhibition is to >>> demonstrate the readiness of the ICT industry to support the >>> implementation of the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Software >>> Programme and also to encourage increased growth in the local OSS >>> industry and community. >>> >>> The exhibition must reflect both quality and professionalism. It >>> should be rich in content and showcase a variety of OSS products, >>> solutions and services, ranging from emerging technologies to >>> matured products. It should also demonstrate interoperability >>> between OSS and proprietary products. >>> >>> I need to reply to MAMPU by 15th November. This is your opportunity >>> to "market" your products to the Malaysian Government Sector. >>> >>> Rgds, >>> Molly >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FOSS_health mailing list >>> FOSS_health@oshca.org >>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> FOSS_health mailing list >>> FOSS_health@oshca.org >>> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> oshca_members mailing list >> oshca_members@oshca.org >> http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members >> . >> > _______________________________________________ > oshca_members mailing list > oshca_members@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/oshca_members > > From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 20:54:34 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 18:36 +1100, Tim C wrote: > On 10/11/2007, Jason Tan Boon Teck wrote: > > Dear Molly, > > > > > > We are interested to participate in the exhibition, to promote PCDOM > > PrimaCare. > > Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from whom can > I obtain a copy of its source code? Dr. Cheah, I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in OSHCA, why these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link would do) go unanswered; while you do apparently have the time to answer other questions about a conference that you do not control (MAMPU/OSSC)? Is your real allegiance to OSHCA? Do you have an understanding and a true belief in open source? Do you have an allegiance to your business around PCDOM Primacare that might preclude you from being a true open source company (in SPIRIT as well as legally?). I think that these are important issues as we approach the (delayed on your part) December AGM for OSHCA. Please let's make these issues and attitudes public. As you told me when I visited with you; you are compliant with the GPL when you distribute PCDOM Primacare (and source code) to Malaysian GPs. This may be true that because you give the source to your customers you are compliant. However, I personally question whether this is in keeping with the true meaning (and spirit) of open source and peer review. I do not mean to disparage your peers in Malaysia. But frankly how can they evaluate the quality and performance of the software? If you hold yourself out to be a free and open source software distributor then let us ALL see it. My frank and personal opinion is that you are a person trying to leverage a marketing movement (open source) without really understanding and appreciating the long term consequences. I look forward to your comments. Kind regards, Tim PS. Note that my postings to the OSHCA members list has somehow/for some reason been blocked as of last month. -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 22:43:19 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [oshca_members] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <47378831.7000101@pc.jaring.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <01c001c823a9$3e67e2e0$bb37a8a0$@com.my> <4736DF8F.1000006@pc.jaring.my> <47371E94.1030104@e-cology.ca> <47378831.7000101@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <1194964999.4479.114.camel@oship> Dr. Cheah, If you have time please could you remind us of who the current Board Members are and the current status of elections that are supposed to be coming up in the next few weeks? Regards, Tim From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 19:05:14 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <200711140001.40194.rod@sunsetsystems.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <200711140001.40194.rod@sunsetsystems.com> Message-ID: <1195038314.11369.11.camel@oship> Thanks for that link Rod. A very interesting article. I wonder how a non-open source application earns a award like this? "Incidentally, PrimaCare has been named the Best Open Source Software in 2004 by the Malaysia National Computer Confederation." Anyway, if the quotes attributed to Molly in the article are correct then I believe that my opinion of her using the open source tag as a marketing and fund-raising scheme is correct. :-( So, Dr. Churches. It seems the answer to your question is likely that it isn't open source and you cannot download it from anywhere. Apparently she is concerned you might endanger patients with it. On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:01 -0800, Rod Roark wrote: > According to the article at http://www.asia-commons.net/healthcare > Molly says: > > "We still have an issue with licensing. Being open source, the > product could allow any coder to make changes on it, which may > impact on the patients safety and outcome. We think that is not the > best model. So we are coming out with our own licensing for the > field of health-care. > "... When we provide the application to the doctors, we actually > provide the PrimaCare server -- we provide the hardware -- which is > a Linux server, in addition to training, support. We charge for > services. The hardware would cost..." > > Clearly this does not describe anything like open source software, and > certainly not GPL. I think the OSI definition is a pretty good > standard by which to measure claims of open source: > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > I for one would accept nothing less. > > Rod > > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 04:54, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 18:36 +1100, Tim C wrote: > > > On 10/11/2007, Jason Tan Boon Teck wrote: > > > > Dear Molly, > > > > > > > > > > > > We are interested to participate in the exhibition, to promote > PCDOM > > > > PrimaCare. > > > > > > Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from whom > can > > > I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > Dr. Cheah, > > > > I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in OSHCA, > why > > these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > would > > do) go unanswered; while you do apparently have the time to answer > other > > questions about a conference that you do not control (MAMPU/OSSC)? > > > > Is your real allegiance to OSHCA? Do you have an understanding and a > > true belief in open source? Do you have an allegiance to your > business > > around PCDOM Primacare that might preclude you from being a true > open > > source company (in SPIRIT as well as legally?). > > > > I think that these are important issues as we approach the (delayed > on > > your part) December AGM for OSHCA. > > > > Please let's make these issues and attitudes public. > > > > As you told me when I visited with you; you are compliant with the > GPL > > when you distribute PCDOM Primacare (and source code) to Malaysian > GPs. > > This may be true that because you give the source to your customers > you > > are compliant. > > > > However, I personally question whether this is in keeping with the > true > > meaning (and spirit) of open source and peer review. I do not mean > to > > disparage your peers in Malaysia. But frankly how can they evaluate > the > > quality and performance of the software? > > > > If you hold yourself out to be a free and open source software > > distributor then let us ALL see it. > > > > My frank and personal opinion is that you are a person trying to > > leverage a marketing movement (open source) without really > understanding > > and appreciating the long term consequences. > > > > I look forward to your comments. > > > > Kind regards, > > Tim > > > > PS. Note that my postings to the OSHCA members list has somehow/for > some > > reason been blocked as of last month. > > > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new > topic > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | > Calendar > > Yahoo! Groups > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > Recent Activity > 1 > New Members > Visit Your Group > Yahoo! Finance > It's Now Personal > > Guides, news, > > advice & more. > > > Ads on Yahoo! > Learn more now. > > Reach customers > > searching for you. > > > Real Food Group > Share recipes > > and favorite meals > > w/ Real Food lovers. > > > . > > __,_._,___ -- Timothy Cook, MSc Health Informatics Research & Development Services http://timothywayne.cook.googlepages.com/home LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook From Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net Wed Nov 14 19:52:39 2007 From: Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net (Karsten Hilbert) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> Message-ID: <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from whom can > > I obtain a copy of its source code? > > Dr. Cheah, > > I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in OSHCA, why > these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link would > do) go unanswered; Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate answer which I would be interested in, too. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 From ladymurrugarra at yahoo.es Wed Nov 14 21:23:54 2007 From: ladymurrugarra at yahoo.es (Lady Murrugarra) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] KL gkp event future ...december 9-14!! In-Reply-To: <1195038314.11369.11.camel@oship> Message-ID: <507352.58938.qm@web26905.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Welcome to GK3, a GKP Event on The Future. GK3, an event on the future taking place at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, 11 to 13 December, brings together 2,000 global visionaries, innovators, practitioners and policy makers. The development and human dimension of ICT, one of the most potent forces shaping the 21st century, will be explored through more than 55 sessions, expert panels and hands-on workshops. GK3 will feature 3 days of intensive discussions on how the threads of emerging people, markets and technologies will intertwine to deliver the future. See what's taking place through our Conference Navigator. Find out why over 250 speakers have confirmed their participation as we bring you programme and speaker highlights on this GKP event on the future. More soon .... http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/gk3/ Lady Murrugarra Instituto de Medicina Tropical Alexander von Humboldt Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia Telemedicine & e-Le@rning Address: Honorio Delgado 430, Lima 31, Per? Telf: (51-1) 4823903, 4823910, Fax: (51-1) 4823404 Email: ladym@upch.edu.pe, murrugarralady@yahoo.com www.upch.edu.pe/tropicales ***************************************** --------------------------------- Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071114/269cbca4/attachment.htm From wross at minformatics.com Thu Nov 15 01:44:48 2007 From: wross at minformatics.com (will ross) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> Message-ID: Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT would allow PCDOM to provide: [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified build will be produced) All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI license, but the "certified" build would have an additional requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? With best regards, [wr] - - - - - - - - All of the builds are produced On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from >>> whom can >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? >> >> Dr. Cheah, >> >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in >> OSHCA, why >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link >> would >> do) go unanswered; > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > Karsten > -- > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > [wr] - - - - - - - - will ross chief information officer mendocino informatics 216 west perkins street, suite 206 ukiah, california 95482 usa 707.462.6369 [office] 707.462.5015 [fax] www.minformatics.com - - - - - - - - From tim.churches at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 09:17:10 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:27 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> On 15/11/2007, will ross wrote: > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified > build will be produced) > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, allowing others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" by some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still completely compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly explained it to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, when she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should correct my understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare is distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which provides a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so good, nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is no prohibition on charging for services relating to open source software, nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing doctors under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either verbally or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. Nor does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only directly to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open source license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, and in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to distribute code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the software is no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be watered down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL must constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional conditions and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL in the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you cannot grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to distribute source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer open source licensing in any accepted sense. Tim C > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from > >>> whom can > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > >> > >> Dr. Cheah, > >> > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > >> OSHCA, why > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > >> would > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > Karsten > > -- > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > [wr] > > - - - - - - - - > > will ross > chief information officer > mendocino informatics > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > ukiah, california 95482 usa > 707.462.6369 [office] > 707.462.5015 [fax] > www.minformatics.com > > - - - - - - - - > > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > From caultonpos at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 09:26:41 2007 From: caultonpos at gmail.com (Greg Caulton) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are going to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an excuse to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate concern. Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away from the GPL license. Greg http://www.patientos.org On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > On 15/11/2007, will ross wrote: > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified > > build will be produced) > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, allowing > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" by > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still completely > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly explained it > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, when > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should correct my > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare is > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which provides > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so good, > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is no > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source software, > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing doctors > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either verbally > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. Nor > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only directly > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open source > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, and > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to distribute > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the software is > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be watered > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL must > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional conditions > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL in > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you cannot > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to distribute > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer open > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > Tim C > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from > > >>> whom can > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > >> > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > >> > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > >> OSHCA, why > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > > >> would > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > Karsten > > > -- > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > will ross > > chief information officer > > mendocino informatics > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > www.minformatics.com > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > From tim.churches at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 09:39:00 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton wrote: > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are going > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an excuse > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > concern. > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away from > the GPL license. It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". Tim C > On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > > On 15/11/2007, will ross wrote: > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, allowing > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" by > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still completely > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly explained it > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, when > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should correct my > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare is > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which provides > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so good, > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is no > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source software, > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing doctors > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either verbally > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. Nor > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only directly > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open source > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, and > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to distribute > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the software is > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be watered > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL must > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional conditions > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL in > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you cannot > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to distribute > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer open > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > Tim C > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from > > > >>> whom can > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > >> > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > >> > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > > > >> would > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > -- > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > will ross > > > chief information officer > > > mendocino informatics > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 10:45:24 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> Unlike other domains, I think medical applications require some degree of 'quality' which can be attested to by experts (or the original developers). This can be called certification by some. Now I think there are two different planes here: 1. the freedom to distribute code (ala GPL) 2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is authentic and of good quality One item does not impact on the other. Proprietary systems support #2 (some in a very terrible manner) but not #1. Software that supports #1 (and the three other freedoms) and #2 can be called open source. Medical software that support #1 is open source but unless there are provisions for #2, I would say that the software cannot be 'certified' for use in real-life situations -- that is my opinion. alvin On Nov 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Tim C wrote: > On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton wrote: > > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are going > > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an excuse > > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > > concern. > > > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away from > > the GPL license. > > It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source > license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, > you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on > licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the > licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". > > Tim C > > > On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > > > On 15/11/2007, will ross wrote: > > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified > > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, allowing > > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" by > > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still completely > > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly explained it > > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, when > > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should correct my > > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare is > > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is > > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which provides > > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so good, > > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is no > > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source software, > > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing doctors > > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either verbally > > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. Nor > > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only directly > > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open source > > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, and > > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to distribute > > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the software is > > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be watered > > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL must > > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional conditions > > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL in > > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you cannot > > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to distribute > > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer open > > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from > > > > >>> whom can > > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > >> > > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > > >> > > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > > > > >> would > > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > > -- > > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > will ross > > > > chief information officer > > > > mendocino informatics > > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > -- Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open Source Network (www.iosn.net) University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence for Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071114/0a053acf/attachment.html From caultonpos at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 11:21:58 2007 From: caultonpos at gmail.com (Greg Caulton) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: To certify code is authentic and good quality is an interesting one. CCHIT is certifying functionality not anything beyond that. Vendor systems can (have) produced truly terrible code, produce dangerous bugs and yet outside of Blood Bank there is no requirement for certification. The only certification comes in the form of the responsibility of the hospital to test, test, test until they are satisfied that they can go live. It is only in recent years these same vendors added quality processes - but do to it on top of a system which has no traceability from source to design to requirements has limited value. What I love about open source, and writing an open source HIS is that you cannot hide behind bad code, plug in hacks, conceal bugs - it is an open environment - ultimately peer reviewed. If vendor systems were measured by their source code I think you would find an industry radically changed and the illusion of cost = quality may be changed. Greg http://www.patientos.org On 11/14/07, Alvin Marcelo wrote: > Unlike other domains, I think medical applications require some degree of > 'quality' which can be attested to by experts (or the original developers). > This can be called certification by some. > > Now I think there are two different planes here: > > 1. the freedom to distribute code (ala GPL) > 2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is authentic > and of good quality > > One item does not impact on the other. Proprietary systems support #2 (some > in a very terrible manner) but not #1. Software that supports #1 (and the > three other freedoms) and #2 can be called open source. > > Medical software that support #1 is open source but unless there are > provisions for #2, I would say that the software cannot be 'certified' for > use in real-life situations -- that is my opinion. > > > alvin > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Tim C wrote: > > > > On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton wrote: > > > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are going > > > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > > > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > > > > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an excuse > > > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > > > concern. > > > > > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away from > > > the GPL license. > > > > It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source > > license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, > > you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on > > licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the > > licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > > > > On 15/11/2007, will ross < wross@minformatics.com> wrote: > > > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified > > > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, allowing > > > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" by > > > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still completely > > > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly explained it > > > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, when > > > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should correct my > > > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare is > > > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is > > > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which provides > > > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so good, > > > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is no > > > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source software, > > > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing doctors > > > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either verbally > > > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. Nor > > > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only directly > > > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open source > > > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, and > > > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to distribute > > > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the software is > > > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be watered > > > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL must > > > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional conditions > > > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL in > > > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you cannot > > > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to distribute > > > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer open > > > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from > > > > > >>> whom can > > > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > > > > > >> would > > > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > > > -- > > > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > will ross > > > > > chief information officer > > > > > mendocino informatics > > > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > -- > Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) > > Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open > Source Network ( www.iosn.net) > University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence for > Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 > Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: > http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 11:28:01 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c9aeb960711141928h67f6e521wa0230bed57dfe7bb@mail.gmail.com> There you go...perhaps this is the destiny of OSHCA -- to register FOSS medical software (the wikipedia list) and to peer review it at the code level...then we also work with CCHIT and other groups for the higher layers of the application... It's OSHCA's niche...come to think of it, you mean they've been certifying bloodbank software at the functionality level only? wow... FOSS then raises the bar... alvin On Nov 14, 2007 7:21 PM, Greg Caulton wrote: > To certify code is authentic and good quality is an interesting one. > CCHIT is certifying functionality not anything beyond that. > > Vendor systems can (have) produced truly terrible code, produce > dangerous bugs and yet outside of Blood Bank there is no requirement > for certification. > > The only certification comes in the form of the responsibility of the > hospital to test, test, test until they are satisfied that they can go > live. It is only in recent years these same vendors added quality > processes - but do to it on top of a system which has no traceability > from source to design to requirements has limited value. > > What I love about open source, and writing an open source HIS is that > you cannot hide behind bad code, plug in hacks, conceal bugs - it is > an open environment - ultimately peer reviewed. > > If vendor systems were measured by their source code I think you would > find an industry radically changed and the illusion of cost = quality > may be changed. > > Greg > > http://www.patientos.org > > > On 11/14/07, Alvin Marcelo wrote: > > Unlike other domains, I think medical applications require some degree > of > > 'quality' which can be attested to by experts (or the original > developers). > > This can be called certification by some. > > > > Now I think there are two different planes here: > > > > 1. the freedom to distribute code (ala GPL) > > 2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is > authentic > > and of good quality > > > > One item does not impact on the other. Proprietary systems support #2 > (some > > in a very terrible manner) but not #1. Software that supports #1 (and > the > > three other freedoms) and #2 can be called open source. > > > > Medical software that support #1 is open source but unless there are > > provisions for #2, I would say that the software cannot be 'certified' > for > > use in real-life situations -- that is my opinion. > > > > > > alvin > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Tim C wrote: > > > > > > On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton wrote: > > > > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are > going > > > > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > > > > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > > > > > > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an > excuse > > > > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > > > > concern. > > > > > > > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away > from > > > > the GPL license. > > > > > > It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source > > > license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, > > > you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on > > > licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the > > > licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > > > > > On 15/11/2007, will ross < wross@minformatics.com> wrote: > > > > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next > certified > > > > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, > allowing > > > > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > > > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" > by > > > > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still > completely > > > > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > > > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > > > > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly > explained it > > > > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, > when > > > > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should > correct my > > > > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare > is > > > > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare > is > > > > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which > provides > > > > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so > good, > > > > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is > no > > > > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source > software, > > > > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > > > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing > doctors > > > > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either > verbally > > > > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. > Nor > > > > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only > directly > > > > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > > > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open > source > > > > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > > > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > > > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, > and > > > > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to > distribute > > > > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > > > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > > > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > > > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the > software is > > > > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be > watered > > > > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL > must > > > > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional > conditions > > > > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > > > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > > > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL > in > > > > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you > cannot > > > > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to > distribute > > > > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > > > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer > open > > > > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or > from > > > > > > >>> whom can > > > > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a > link > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > will ross > > > > > > chief information officer > > > > > > mendocino informatics > > > > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) > > > > Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open > > Source Network ( www.iosn.net) > > University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence > for > > Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 > > Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: > > http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > -- Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open Source Network (www.iosn.net) University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence for Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071114/8db111c8/attachment.htm From hseldon at swinburne.edu.my Thu Nov 15 11:28:16 2007 From: hseldon at swinburne.edu.my (Lee Seldon) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: open source - PrimaCare In-Reply-To: <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1119.172.20.121.179.1195097296.squirrel@www.swinburne.edu.my> I don't remember the various open source licenses, but I recall that at least one states clearly that code may be freely distributed on the conditions that no changes have been made (by the distributor) the original source is acknowledged That should resolve the PrimaCare problem. Lee From tim.churches at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 11:30:08 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711141930h19830a19y72569def8878e529@mail.gmail.com> On 15/11/2007, Alvin Marcelo wrote: > Unlike other domains, I think medical applications require some degree of > 'quality' which can be attested to by experts (or the original developers). > This can be called certification by some. > > Now I think there are two different planes here: > > 1. the freedom to distribute code (ala GPL) > 2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is authentic > and of good quality > > One item does not impact on the other. Proprietary systems support #2 (some > in a very terrible manner) but not #1. Software that supports #1 (and the > three other freedoms) and #2 can be called open source. > > Medical software that support #1 is open source but unless there are > provisions for #2, I would say that the software cannot be 'certified' for > use in real-life situations -- that is my opinion. I agree, although it must be added that certification applies to all true copies of a particular version of the source code for a software application, not to particular instances or particular copies of that version of the source code. In other words, if a zip file or tarball contains the certified version of a medical application licensed under an open source license, then if copies of that zip file or tarball are distributed to third parties, then those additional copies are also certified version. This seems obvious but it is worth stating: the certification relates to a version of the code, not to particular copies of that version of the code. The authenticity of a particular version is easy established by computing the MD5 or SHA1 hash digest of the entire source code distribution and comparing that against the hash digest of the certified version - if they match, the code is the certified version. This can be done on a file-by-file basis as well. Tim C > On Nov 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Tim C wrote: > > > > On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton wrote: > > > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are going > > > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > > > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > > > > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an excuse > > > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > > > concern. > > > > > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away from > > > the GPL license. > > > > It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source > > license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, > > you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on > > licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the > > licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > > > > On 15/11/2007, will ross < wross@minformatics.com> wrote: > > > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next certified > > > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, allowing > > > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" by > > > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still completely > > > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly explained it > > > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, when > > > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should correct my > > > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare is > > > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare is > > > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which provides > > > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so good, > > > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is no > > > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source software, > > > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing doctors > > > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either verbally > > > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. Nor > > > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only directly > > > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open source > > > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, and > > > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to distribute > > > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the software is > > > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be watered > > > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL must > > > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional conditions > > > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL in > > > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you cannot > > > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to distribute > > > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer open > > > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or from > > > > > >>> whom can > > > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a link > > > > > >> would > > > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > > > -- > > > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > will ross > > > > > chief information officer > > > > > mendocino informatics > > > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > -- > Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) > > Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open > Source Network ( www.iosn.net) > University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence for > Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 > Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: > http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > From tim.churches at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 11:43:21 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: open source - PrimaCare In-Reply-To: <1119.172.20.121.179.1195097296.squirrel@www.swinburne.edu.my> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> <1119.172.20.121.179.1195097296.squirrel@www.swinburne.edu.my> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711141943j5132a401x46fe3b730db5b3dd@mail.gmail.com> On 15/11/2007, Lee Seldon wrote: > I don't remember the various open source licenses, but I recall that at > least one states clearly that code may be freely distributed on the > conditions that no changes have been made (by the distributor) > the original source is acknowledged If the licensee is prevented from making changes and then redistributing the code, then it is not an open source license. > That should resolve the PrimaCare problem. The solution has already been elaborated: the solution that OpenVista uses - that is, certification of a particular version of the code, but the open source freedom to modify and redistribute that certified code is still provided by an open source license. However, modified versions of the code are no longer certified. In other words, separate certification from source code licensing. The certification does not need to be official. For example, PCDOM could issue its own certification for a particular version of PrimaCare, while still freely allowing the PrimaCare source code to be modified and redistributed under an open source license. The name PrimaCare can even be attached to the certified version - for example, the license might state that if the certified PrimaCare source code has been altered, then it can still be redistributed but only under the name OpenCare, and the altered code no longer carries certification by PCDOM (or whatever organisation does the certification). Such an arrangement would still be perfectly compatible with open source principles and the open source definition. Tim C From john at john-norris.net Thu Nov 15 11:45:37 2007 From: john at john-norris.net (John Norris) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: FOSS_health Digest, Vol 7, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> Message-ID: <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> No doubt some of you more legal types are all over this, but can't an organization use a proprietary name for their version of the program they stand behind, thus forcing others to use a different name for their own instance of the code (be it the same or a different version?) Thus, program X could be released as John's Wizz Bang EMR (TM), where John stands behind the quality of the code. Yet, the source is free and anyone else can download it, and change it or not...but they can't call it John's Wizz Bang EMR. Thus, there should not be any confusion. I think this is something along the lines of the "infamous" Iceweasel browser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceWeasel -John >Now I think there are two different planes here: > >1. the freedom to distribute code (ala GPL) >2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is authentic >and of good quality > >One item does not impact on the other. Proprietary systems support #2 (some >in a very terrible manner) but not #1. Software that supports #1 (and the >three other freedoms) and #2 can be called open source. > >Medical software that support #1 is open source but unless there are >provisions for #2, I would say that the software cannot be 'certified' for >use in real-life situations -- that is my opinion. > >alvin From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 12:12:17 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <7bb0495c0711141930h19830a19y72569def8878e529@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <7bb0495c0711092336y6b6418e1k50977c5a8ebe01f1@mail.gmail.com> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141930h19830a19y72569def8878e529@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c9aeb960711142012l47317de4w51a9f7fd99b95bb3@mail.gmail.com> Okay, let me probe on this a bit, and challenge thoughts: What do we mean by 'certified': 1. Any software that matches the original md5 hash digest of the software in mind (Tim C)..which can exist in many hard drives OR 2. Any software that the original developers authenticate as matching the md5 hash digest of what they believe is the good quality version.....and which is a service that the orig developers provide to the clients who want the assurance of authenticity. #1 is source code certification #2 is actually an authentication service -- (but labeling the version as 'certified') thus the confusion. i think this is important esp if the developers wish to make money out of their software without infringing on GPL... version of the source code. In other words, if a zip file or tarball > contains the certified version of a medical application licensed under > an open source license, then if copies of that zip file or tarball are > distributed to third parties, then those additional copies are also > certified version. This seems obvious but it is worth stating: the > certification relates to a version of the code, not to particular > copies of that version of the code. The authenticity of a particular > version is easy established by computing the MD5 or SHA1 hash digest > of the entire source code distribution and comparing that against the > hash digest of the certified version - if they match, the code is the > certified version. This can be done on a file-by-file basis as well. > > Tim C > > > On Nov 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Tim C wrote: > > > > > > On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton wrote: > > > > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are > going > > > > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > > > > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > > > > > > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an > excuse > > > > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > > > > concern. > > > > > > > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away > from > > > > the GPL license. > > > > > > It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source > > > license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, > > > you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on > > > licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the > > > licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/14/07, Tim C wrote: > > > > > On 15/11/2007, will ross < wross@minformatics.com> wrote: > > > > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next > certified > > > > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, > allowing > > > > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > > > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" > by > > > > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still > completely > > > > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > > > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > > > > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly > explained it > > > > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, > when > > > > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should > correct my > > > > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare > is > > > > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare > is > > > > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which > provides > > > > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so > good, > > > > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is > no > > > > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source > software, > > > > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > > > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing > doctors > > > > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either > verbally > > > > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. > Nor > > > > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only > directly > > > > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > > > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open > source > > > > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > > > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > > > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, > and > > > > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to > distribute > > > > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > > > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > > > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > > > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the > software is > > > > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be > watered > > > > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL > must > > > > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional > conditions > > > > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > > > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > > > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL > in > > > > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you > cannot > > > > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to > distribute > > > > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > > > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer > open > > > > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or > from > > > > > > >>> whom can > > > > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a > link > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > will ross > > > > > > chief information officer > > > > > > mendocino informatics > > > > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) > > > > Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open > > Source Network ( www.iosn.net) > > University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence > for > > Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 > > Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: > > http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general > > _______________________________________________ > > FOSS_health mailing list > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > -- Alvin B. Marcelo, MD (www.alvinmarcelo.com) Director, National Telehealth Center | Manager, International Open Source Network (www.iosn.net) University of the Philippines Manila | UNDP Centre of Excellence for Free/Open Source Software in the ASEAN+3 Telefax: 632-525-6501 | List: http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/iosn-general -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071114/52864d23/attachment.html From tim.churches at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 12:44:27 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: <2c9aeb960711142012l47317de4w51a9f7fd99b95bb3@mail.gmail.com> References: <473530F3.7060303@pc.jaring.my> <1194958474.4479.102.camel@oship> <20071114115239.GA4478@merkur.hilbert.loc> <7bb0495c0711141717r601c0ee5l84f0bed7da75b6bf@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141739j705c0f76pd6ed489bcc2d1302@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711141845x185f1c9ao3f577c0ab43f6ac7@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711141930h19830a19y72569def8878e529@mail.gmail.com> <2c9aeb960711142012l47317de4w51a9f7fd99b95bb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711142044o5860214br6f8833225c10fa1d@mail.gmail.com> On 15/11/2007, Alvin Marcelo wrote: > Okay, let me probe on this a bit, and challenge thoughts: > > What do we mean by 'certified': > > 1. Any software that matches the original md5 hash digest of the software in > mind (Tim C)..which can exist in many hard drives > > OR > > 2. Any software that the original developers authenticate as matching the > md5 hash digest of what they believe is the good quality version.....and > which is a service that the orig developers provide to the clients who want > the assurance of authenticity. > > #1 is source code certification > #2 is actually an authentication service -- (but labeling the version as > 'certified') thus the confusion. > > i think this is important esp if the developers wish to make money out of > their software without infringing on GPL. I think that either approach is fine, and both are entirely compatible with open source definitions and principles. What you can't do, however, is to try to enforce certification by restricting the abilities of users to modify and redistribute code and at the same time claim your product is open source. Tim C > > > On Nov 14, 2007 5:39 PM, Tim C wrote: > > > > > > > > On 15/11/2007, Greg Caulton < caultonpos@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Agreed, there are other less restrictive licenses but if you are > going > > > > > to call your software GPL then you better let others distribute it, > > > > > sell it, profit it from or do whatever they want with your software. > > > > > > > > > > Just because it is software for healthcare does not give one an > excuse > > > > > to 'protect people from using it', that does sound like a corporate > > > > > concern. > > > > > > > > > > Hence why (in my limited understanding) most companies stay away > from > > > > > the GPL license. > > > > > > > > It doesn't just apply to the GPL, it applies to *every* open source > > > > license. If, when licensing software under any open source license, > > > > you impose additional restrictions, conditions or inhibitions on > > > > licensees' ability to redistribute the software to others, then the > > > > licensing arrangements can no longer be regarded as "open source". > > > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/14/07, Tim C < tim.churches@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 15/11/2007, will ross < wross@minformatics.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Karsten, Tim, Tim, et. al., > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is Molly conflating the FOSS license with the need to certify a > > > > > > > medically approved build of the PCDOM application? If so, it > > > > > > > resembles the "certification" conundrum facing WorldWistA. > > > > > > > Conceptually, learning from the WorldVistA experience with CCHIT > > > > > > > would allow PCDOM to provide: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [A.] Certified builds of the PCDOM application > > > > > > > [B.] Uncertified alternate builds (from which the next > certified > > > > > > > build will be produced) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All of the builds would be released under the same standard OSI > > > > > > > license, but the "certified" build would have an additional > > > > > > > requirement to not vary from a tightly controlled specification. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that would be an excellent licensing model to follow, > allowing > > > > > > others to still study and adapt and re-use all or parts of PCDOM > > > > > > PrimaCare while annointing a specific version of it as "certified" > by > > > > > > some official or unofficial process. Such a model is still > completely > > > > > > compliant with teh official definition of "open source licensing". > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or am I misunderstanding the situation? > > > > > > > > > > > > However, as far as I understand it (and this is how Molly > explained it > > > > > > to Brendan Scott, an open source licensing lawyer, and myself, > when > > > > > > she visited Sydney in December 2006 - Molly can and should > correct my > > > > > > understanding if I have it wrong), that is not how PCDOM PrimaCare > is > > > > > > distributed. I understand that the source code for PCDOM PrimaCare > is > > > > > > provided to doctors who subscribe to the PCDOM service, which > provides > > > > > > a server, the software, help desk, maintenance etc. So far, so > good, > > > > > > nothing wrong with that from an open source perspective - there is > no > > > > > > prohibition on charging for services relating to open source > software, > > > > > > nor even for the software itself. I gather that recently that the > > > > > > PCDOM PrimaCare source code has been licensed to subscribing > doctors > > > > > > under the GPL, but the recipients of it are requested, either > verbally > > > > > > or in writing, not to distribute the code to any third parties. > Nor > > > > > > does PCDOM make the source code available anywhere else, only > directly > > > > > > to subscribers, who are then told not to distribute it to others. > > > > > > Molly argues that there nothing in the GPL (or any other open > source > > > > > > license) which requires that code be distributed to others - it is > > > > > > entire up to the licensee (the recipient) of the code whether they > > > > > > make it available to others or not. However, there is in the GPL, > and > > > > > > in all other genuine open source licenses, the *freedom* to > distribute > > > > > > code to others if you chose to do so. This freedom cannot be > > > > > > restricted by an additional condition, even if only a verbal > > > > > > "gentleperson's agreement", not to distribute the code to others. > > > > > > Well, it can be restricted, but the end result is that the > software is > > > > > > no longer licensed as open source software. The GPL cannot be > watered > > > > > > down like that and still remain an open source license. The GPL > must > > > > > > constitute the entire licensing agreement, and additional > conditions > > > > > > and restrictions on further distribution of source code cannot be > > > > > > imposed on the licensee and it still be considered an open source > > > > > > license. You can substitute any other open source license for GPL > in > > > > > > the forgoing and the argument still holds. In other words, you > cannot > > > > > > grant a licensee the fundamental open source to freedom to > distribute > > > > > > source code to third parties, and then add an additional condition > > > > > > which asks them not to exercise that freedom. That is no longer > open > > > > > > source licensing in any accepted sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim C > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:52 AM, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:54:34PM +0000, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Is PCDOM PrimaCare open-source software? If so, where or > from > > > > > > > >>> whom can > > > > > > > >>> I obtain a copy of its source code? > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Dr. Cheah, > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> I am wondering, especially in your capacity of leadership in > > > > > > > >> OSHCA, why > > > > > > > >> these seemingly simple questions, but important questions (a > link > > > > > > > >> would > > > > > > > >> do) go unanswered; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim, I agree these simple questions really lack an adequate > > > > > > > > answer which I would be interested in, too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Karsten > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net > > > > > > > > E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [wr] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will ross > > > > > > > chief information officer > > > > > > > mendocino informatics > > > > > > > 216 west perkins street, suite 206 > > > > > > > ukiah, california 95482 usa > > > > > > > 707.462.6369 [office] > > > > > > > 707.462.5015 [fax] > > > > > > > www.minformatics.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > > > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > FOSS_health mailing list > > > > > FOSS_health@oshca.org > > > > > > > > > ht