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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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 12:48:27 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: FOSS_health Digest, Vol 7, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> On 15/11/2007, John Norris wrote: > 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. Yes, that approach is fine and is consistent with open source principles and definitions. Adding such conditions to an open source license does not destroy its open source characteristics (although note that you can't add things to all licenses, such as the GPL, whereas others, such as the Mozilla Public License, permit such additions). Tim C > >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 > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > From martin at inflection-technologies.com Thu Nov 15 20:13:55 2007 From: martin at inflection-technologies.com (Martin Peacock) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [openhealth] Re: [FOSS_health] MyGOSSCON 2007 on 6-7 December KL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <83494.97523.qm@web401.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> PACS also has certification requirements, under certain circumstances, but I agree the quality question is important. I continue to be annoyed with people arriving back from a trade show with a CD in their pocket containing an Access database intended for front-line use. While there are many advantages to OSS I don't think its a replacement for some form of certification/accreditation. Having bad code exposed is meaningless unless the potential users subscribe to the appropriate information sources/mailing lists. The simplest form of accreditation might be something like EOS (www.eosdirectory.com) where an independent group who do subscribe to the necessary information sources and importantly, can understand what the informtion/conversations/evaluations actually mean, can give at least a passive nod to a given product: "According to sources available, there is no specific and material impediment to clinical use of this software" (or something like that). Martin Peacock 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 > > _______________________________________________ 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/20071115/f37f57c0/attachment.htm From fred.trotter at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 23:10:35 2007 From: fred.trotter at gmail.com (Fred Trotter) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: FOSS_health Digest, Vol 7, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It is not a "proprietary" name. It is properly described as using a trademark to differentiate FOSS services and to ensure control of a project. proprietary implies that there is some private secret that give an advantage, which is not at all what is happening here. Otherwise you get the concept fine. Generally this is why MirrorMed is called "MirrorMed". ClearHealth Inc. owns the trademark "ClearHealth". MirrorMed is basically a trademark fork that allows me to continue working with the same codebase. It is traditional to have some reference to the original project in trademark forks, "Mirror" and "Clear" in our case. But also Centos stands for community enterprise operating system and is a fork of Red Hat enterprise linux... -FT On Nov 14, 2007 10:48 PM, Tim C wrote: > On 15/11/2007, John Norris wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, that approach is fine and is consistent with open source > principles and definitions. Adding such conditions to an open source > license does not destroy its open source characteristics (although > note that you can't add things to all licenses, such as the GPL, > whereas others, such as the Mozilla Public License, permit such > additions). > > Tim C > > > > >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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com From wwilson at umich.edu Fri Nov 16 01:02:40 2007 From: wwilson at umich.edu (Wayne Wilson) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> Remember FOSS = Free AND Open Source Software First off while I can't claim to understand the legalities, Red Hat will only let you have a copy of Enterprise Linux via a subscription service. You are not allowed to transfer that subscription. If you wish to re-distribute parts of EL, you have to remove all Red Hat trademarks and logo's but still you can only distribute the parts as individual parts, you cannot distribute them as Enterprise Linux. Now, Red Hat uses GPL code within RHEL and they are most certainly associated with Open Source success in the world. Here is their EULA: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html We know that people can take the parts of EL and rebuild them into a new system (= CentOS) which can then be distributed in any way you see fit according to the sub-licenses. Now, you can all argue the theoretical 'goodness' of various licenses to your hearts content. What happens when this effects some code that you are writing is that people either agree or choose to disagree and then they fork off another code base, i.e. Red Hat Enterprise Linux versus CentOS. End users use these various distributions and code bases as they find value in them. For example, my operation in the College I work for pays for Red Hat and Novell enterprise linux licenses, but other operations choose to do CentOS or Ubuntu or Debian or .... So, if you want to sue PCDOM over their distribution and licensing terms by claiming they violate the GPL go ahead and do it. Don't drag the rest of us into it. If the issue is what the PCDOM software is labeled on some list, then I suggest we don't put a label on it, we just put a URL to it's licensing terms and let the end users decide if those terms are acceptable or not. If the issue is whether a member of PCDOM should be a leading figure in OSHCA or in OSS (and this is what the issue really seems to me to be about, despite the endless licensing terms discussions) because of the licensing terms of software they promote, then that is another issue entirely.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071115/b5393389/PGP.pgp From fred.trotter at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 02:02:51 2007 From: fred.trotter at gmail.com (Fred Trotter) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> Message-ID: Wayne, You are assuming that we as a community have no differences from the FOSS community at large. This is a mistake. Our values are not merely those of FOSS, but the special application of those to healthcare. If Dr. Cheah finds a way to limit the available support options to for her GPL EHR, that is un-acceptable. It means that thousands of patient records could be trapped. If PCDOM is changing the license or misusing the GPL in a way that causes vendor lock-in it is NOT the same as having only one vendor for an operating system. When you purchase RHEL from Red Hat you get sourcecode that could be useful to you because you are (I assume) technical. But a clinician usually does not have the ability or time to self-support. It is absolutely critical that a clinician be able to hire other organizations for support. This issue is a perfect example of the fact that FOSS subcultures can have different value systems, than the FOSS culture at large. -FT -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com From wwilson at umich.edu Fri Nov 16 02:23:11 2007 From: wwilson at umich.edu (Wayne Wilson) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Fred Trotter wrote: > If Dr. Cheah finds a way to limit the available support > options to for her GPL EHR, that is un-acceptable. It means that > thousands of patient records could be trapped. > Thanks for that insight. In general I would like to agree with you that it would be better for everything to be open and all source code to be downloadable. My point was that shouldn't it be up to the users, both doctors and patients, to decide if the conditions of use are acceptable? I don't want to go around telling everyone I meet that unless their medical care provider uses GPL software or agree's to export their patient records into a machine readable standard format that that provider is engaging in unacceptable behavior. Then again maybe I should be doing just that. Unfortunately for me, that would mean I would have no insurance coverage through my employment. Then again, if one is not willing to eat one's own dog food maybe one should not be promoting it! At least that is the gist of what I think is being said here. Even if you think that the Health Care FOSS community should be policing licenses and the ultimate fate of patient records, do you think you will find just a single set of acceptable values represented as licenses? As I said, for example in the WikiPedia listing one can note that source code is limited to subscribers only and point the end user to the licensing terms. Somewhere else on WikiPedia an entry could be made, making the case for freely machine readable patient record formats. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071115/b3f3e8b5/PGP.pgp From fred.trotter at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 03:55:28 2007 From: fred.trotter at gmail.com (Fred Trotter) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> Message-ID: Wayne, You make very lucid points :) answers throughout... > > > Thanks for that insight. In general I would like to agree with you > that it would be better for everything to be open and all source code > to be downloadable. My point was that shouldn't it be up to the > users, both doctors and patients, to decide if the conditions of use > are acceptable? Absolutely, assuming those same doctors and patients are informed about the choices that they are making. One of the problem with the current situation is that clinicians are making the decisions for the patients, AND they have no idea what the implications are of software licensing that they choose. I have been trying to do an education push, through GPLMedicine.org to inform clinicians of licensing issues, and how generally choosing the GPL keeps them safe from proprietary shenanigans. Imagine, then, my concern that someone might be using the GPL in a manner that enables other shenanigans... not good. > I don't want to go around telling everyone I meet > that unless their medical care provider uses GPL software or agree's > to export their patient records into a machine readable standard > format that that provider is engaging in unacceptable behavior. Welcome to my world. > Then > again maybe I should be doing just that. The waters just fine, hop on in. > Unfortunately for me, that > would mean I would have no insurance coverage through my employment. Really, I am not sure how that would happen? Are you saying you would be fired or just that your employer would drop healthcare coverage. > Then again, if one is not willing to eat one's own dog food maybe one > should not be promoting it! At least that is the gist of what I > think is being said here. Exactly. Dr Cheah has a leadership role in our community, and so this level of divergence of values would be a huge problem. Of course, I imagine that Dr. Cheah might not be so slavishly devoted to checking email as I am. She might not have even read my messages yet. I would expect her to take her time and reply with a thoughtful answer, there is no particular rush here. > > Even if you think that the Health Care FOSS community should be > policing licenses and the ultimate fate of patient records, do you > think you will find just a single set of acceptable values > represented as licenses? Not at all, but there is an implied consensus around those license that are approved of as "Free" and those that are approved of as "Open Source". So we have some built in flexibility for some differences in values. > As I said, for example in the WikiPedia listing one can note that > source code is limited to subscribers only and point the end user to > the licensing terms. Somewhere else on WikiPedia an entry could be > made, making the case for freely machine readable patient record > formats. I agree, some kind of warning should be made, but lets give Dr. Cheah time to respond before we do any labeling. Again this could all just be a simple miscommunication or an already-resolved issue. -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com From tim.churches at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 04:24:58 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711151224m65672c31i97e0790992b84cba@mail.gmail.com> On 16/11/2007, Wayne Wilson wrote: > As I said, for example in the WikiPedia listing one can note that > source code is limited to subscribers only and point the end user to > the licensing terms. Currently the licensing terms for PCDOM PrimaCare do not seem to be published anywhere. Personally, I don't really care if the licensing terms for PCDOM PrimaCare prevent or dissuade end users from redistributing the code to others. However, if that is the case, then PCDOM PrimaCare is categorically NOT open source software, and should NOT be promoted as such. That, I care about. Tim C From dalmolin at e-cology.ca Fri Nov 16 04:52:15 2007 From: dalmolin at e-cology.ca (Joseph Dal Molin) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Test - please ignore, trying to get rid of duplicate messages In-Reply-To: <7bb0495c0711151224m65672c31i97e0790992b84cba@mail.gmail.com> References: <473bb5c3.0635640a.6023.08d1MFETCHER_ADDED@google.com> <11d2dee50711141945j7005d45fk268df3d190a57b1@mail.gmail.com> <7bb0495c0711142048i49376a64j587304bfd4df40ea@mail.gmail.com> <7D52AEAC-7EB1-4403-A3F8-EB6EB3237580@umich.edu> <7bb0495c0711151224m65672c31i97e0790992b84cba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <473CB17F.7080305@e-cology.ca> From wwilson at umich.edu Fri Nov 16 06:13:55 2007 From: wwilson at umich.edu (Wayne Wilson) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion Message-ID: <20071115171355.BTU45550@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> then Red Hat Enterprise is not open source either. Nor is Novell/SUSE. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:24:58 +1100 >From: "Tim C" >Subject: Re: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion >To: foss_health@oshca.org > >On 16/11/2007, Wayne Wilson wrote: >> As I said, for example in the WikiPedia listing one can note that >> source code is limited to subscribers only and point the end user to >> the licensing terms. > >Currently the licensing terms for PCDOM PrimaCare do not seem to be >published anywhere. > >Personally, I don't really care if the licensing terms for PCDOM >PrimaCare prevent or dissuade end users from redistributing the code >to others. However, if that is the case, then PCDOM PrimaCare is >categorically NOT open source software, and should NOT be promoted as >such. > >That, I care about. > >Tim C >_______________________________________________ >FOSS_health mailing list >FOSS_health@oshca.org >http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health From fred.trotter at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 06:30:15 2007 From: fred.trotter at gmail.com (Fred Trotter) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: <20071115171355.BTU45550@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> References: <20071115171355.BTU45550@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> Message-ID: Both of those projects allow for customers to redistribute the sourcecode. All the customers have to do is change the name of the product. Not sure what you mean.... -FT On Nov 15, 2007 4:13 PM, Wayne Wilson wrote: > then Red Hat Enterprise is not open source either. Nor is Novell/SUSE. > > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:24:58 +1100 > >From: "Tim C" > >Subject: Re: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion > >To: foss_health@oshca.org > > > >On 16/11/2007, Wayne Wilson wrote: > >> As I said, for example in the WikiPedia listing one can note that > >> source code is limited to subscribers only and point the end user to > >> the licensing terms. > > > >Currently the licensing terms for PCDOM PrimaCare do not seem to be > >published anywhere. > > > >Personally, I don't really care if the licensing terms for PCDOM > >PrimaCare prevent or dissuade end users from redistributing the code > >to others. However, if that is the case, then PCDOM PrimaCare is > >categorically NOT open source software, and should NOT be promoted as > >such. > > > >That, I care about. > > > >Tim C > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com From tim.churches at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 06:30:30 2007 From: tim.churches at gmail.com (Tim C) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion In-Reply-To: <20071115171355.BTU45550@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> References: <20071115171355.BTU45550@thymus.msis.med.umich.edu> Message-ID: <7bb0495c0711151430i24df196j1aac579a3a67c8c9@mail.gmail.com> On 16/11/2007, Wayne Wilson wrote: > then Red Hat Enterprise is not open source either. Nor is Novell/SUSE. Not true at all. The only additional restrictions that Red Hat and Novell put on redistribution by subscribers is that subscribers can't redistribute their trademarked logos (or use the Red Hat or Novell/SuSE names). However, subscribers are absolutely, 100% at liberty to redistribute any and all of the source code for their Linux distribution products. That is exactly how the Centos distribution works - they subscribe to Red hat Enterprise Linux, and as a subscriber, they download complete copies of it, take out teh red hat logos and name and substitute "Centos", and then redistribute it. This occurs with the blessing of Red Hat. That is very different from the apparent situation with PCDOM PrimaCare, in which subscribers are apparently asked not to redistribute the source code to third parties. It is this restriction on redistribution of source code which is completely antithetical to the principles of FOSS. As others have noted, it would be exceedingly helpful of Molly Cheah would state exactly how PCDOM PrimaCare is licensed, and whether subscribers to the PCDOM PrimaCare service are, in fact, requested not to redistribute the source code. Tim C > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:24:58 +1100 > >From: "Tim C" > >Subject: Re: [FOSS_health] FOSS_Health Licensing discussion > >To: foss_health@oshca.org > > > >On 16/11/2007, Wayne Wilson wrote: > >> As I said, for example in the WikiPedia listing one can note that > >> source code is limited to subscribers only and point the end user to > >> the licensing terms. > > > >Currently the licensing terms for PCDOM PrimaCare do not seem to be > >published anywhere. > > > >Personally, I don't really care if the licensing terms for PCDOM > >PrimaCare prevent or dissuade end users from redistributing the code > >to others. However, if that is the case, then PCDOM PrimaCare is > >categorically NOT open source software, and should NOT be promoted as > >such. > > > >That, I care about. > > > >Tim C > >_______________________________________________ > >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 amidgley2 at defoam.net Sat Nov 17 09:45:06 2007 From: amidgley2 at defoam.net (Adrian Midgley) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: open or not [WAS: other] 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: <473E47A2.5070801@defoam.net> 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. Certainly more so than some domains. But even in order to sell support, a specific version of the software is likely to be specified. It doesn't stop people modifying it in order to try something else out, but they would feed those changes back via the project. > 2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is > authentic and of good quality > TO certify it in some sense, yes, concur. > One item does not impact on the other. Yes From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 20:10:52 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: open or not [WAS: other] In-Reply-To: <473E47A2.5070801@defoam.net> 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> <473E47A2.5070801@defoam.net> Message-ID: <2c9aeb960711170410xeda1b07o561c166cd7c006e8@mail.gmail.com> And therefore, perhaps something OSHCA can promote is the ability of FOSS health projects to be able to formalize themselves to provide this certification support -- meaning just coming out with the software is not enough -- it should be backed up by a business model where the code can actually be supported by a competent body. On Nov 17, 2007 9:45 AM, Adrian Midgley wrote: > 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. > Certainly more so than some domains. But even in order to sell support, > a specific version of the software is likely to be specified. It > doesn't stop people modifying it in order to try something else out, but > they would feed those changes back via the project. > > > > 2. the ability to certify that a particular version of the code is > > authentic and of good quality > > > TO certify it in some sense, yes, concur. > > > > One item does not impact on the other. > Yes > > > > > > -- 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/20071117/3557fd33/attachment.html From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 08:40:56 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] General assembly Message-ID: <2c9aeb960711171640r5d753cb4u27343164219c84be@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, I heard that there may be an OSHCA general assembly at the Kuala Lumpur GK3 conference (Dec 10-13)? May I know if this is confirmed (as I will also be there). Also who among the members will be there? Maybe we can formalize some collaborations while we're face-to-face... OpenCUI.org/wiki is still waiting for collaborators :) alvin -- 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/20071118/5f981846/attachment.htm From csmithprivate at hotmail.com Sun Nov 18 11:21:56 2007 From: csmithprivate at hotmail.com (Colin Smith) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] General assembly References: <2c9aeb960711171640r5d753cb4u27343164219c84be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Dr Marcelo, I will be at the GK3 conference on behalf of WorldVistA and will be delighted to meet you and any other OSCHA members there. Colin Smith ----- Original Message ----- From: Alvin Marcelo To: oshca_members@oshca.org ; foss_health Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:40 AM Subject: [FOSS_health] General assembly Dear all, I heard that there may be an OSHCA general assembly at the Kuala Lumpur GK3 conference (Dec 10-13)? May I know if this is confirmed (as I will also be there). Also who among the members will be there? Maybe we can formalize some collaborations while we're face-to-face... OpenCUI.org/wiki is still waiting for collaborators :) alvin -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071118/b019c5ef/attachment.html From timothywayne.cook at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 02:04:21 2007 From: timothywayne.cook at gmail.com (Tim Cook) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Re: [oshca_members] General assembly In-Reply-To: <2c9aeb960711171640r5d753cb4u27343164219c84be@mail.gmail.com> References: <2c9aeb960711171640r5d753cb4u27343164219c84be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1195409061.4505.220.camel@oship> On Sun, 2007-11-18 at 08:40 +0800, Alvin Marcelo wrote: > > Dear all, > > I heard that there may be an OSHCA general assembly at the Kuala > Lumpur GK3 conference (Dec 10-13)? May I know if this is confirmed (as > I will also be there). This is interesting. I know that when I was in KL in May we were supposed to have elections but they were delayed (as Molly told me) because the constitution requires at least a two week notice (I believe on the members mailing list). I also believe the constitution has some stipulation in it about the protem board only being effective until December 31, 2007. ???? My questions are: 1) How do we insure we do not miss the two week mark this time? This is especially IMPORTANT if the GA is to be held in 22 days!!! 2) What is the process to make nominations? For that matter, WHAT positions are open to be nominated to? Which incumbents are running? 3) If we do not meet the 31 December (????) deadline to hold proper elections then does OSHCA cease to exist under Malaysian law? Thanks, Tim From caultonpos at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 21:00:54 2007 From: caultonpos at gmail.com (Greg Caulton) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] PatientOS v0.21 "Scheduling II" released - Online demo Message-ID: PatientOS is a (free) Open Source EMR for physician offices, ambulatory clinics and next year hospitals. Version 0.21 adds major scheduling functionality. Appointment types can be defined in batches , double or any number of overbooking predefined on the schedule with all appointments defined with a custom color. Appointments can be rescheduled. Multiple resources viewed by day or week. Custom work schedules, blocking out of schedules. While 0.21 is Alpha, PatientOS is preparing to go live in December '07 (scheduling and basic EMR functionality only). To connect to our demo server (sorry one at a time) in minutes consult this thread http://www.patientos.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=42 thanks! Greg http://www.patientos.org From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Thu Nov 29 09:12:24 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets & brochures Message-ID: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> Hi, I would like to source for volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets/pamphlets for low-cost production (either to be printed on coloured A4 size paper or minimal colours) These are for distribution at the MoO market place at GK3. OSHCA had been given a physical tent for an afternoon and 2 Pole meeting sessions had been offered to us - one on health and the other on open source. I had been asked to lead these two sessions. Therefore I would like to request for volunteers, especially those who will be at the GK3 conference to help me plan and manage these two sessions. I had agreed to these proposed dates and time, that the Open Source meeting takes place at the 12th, 14.30-16.00 hours and the Health meeting on the 13th 13.00-14.30hours OSHCA had also been given 2 adjoining booths for the MyGOSSCON exhibition from 6-7 Dec 2007. MIMOS Malaysia has developed prototypes of the low cost laptops using the linux OS, similar to the InkMedia and that of the OLAP project. As there are few takers to showcase FOSS applications in health, I'm talking to MIMOS to make these available at the OSHCA booths. I still hope to be able to run a few FOSS applications on a local server (if I can get volunteers to set them up) and make available a few laptops for viewing these applications. I was given to understand not to rely on internet connection during the exhibition unless we pay for own connection - 3rd world scenario. At the same time, I'm open to other options and positive suggestions are welcomed. Molly From chickerursr at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 11:52:10 2007 From: chickerursr at gmail.com (satyadhyan chickerur) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets & brochures In-Reply-To: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> References: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: Dear Dr Cheah , I would be interested to design a leaflets/pamphlets for OSHCA . best regards, s.chickerur On 11/29/07, Molly Cheah wrote: > > Hi, > I would like to source for volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets/pamphlets > for low-cost production (either to be printed on coloured A4 size paper > or minimal colours) These are for distribution at the MoO market place > at GK3. OSHCA had been given a physical tent for an afternoon and 2 Pole > meeting sessions had been offered to us - one on health and the other on > open source. I had been asked to lead these two sessions. Therefore I > would like to request for volunteers, especially those who will be at > the GK3 conference to help me plan and manage these two sessions. I had > agreed to these proposed dates and time, that the Open Source meeting > takes place at the 12th, 14.30-16.00 hours and the Health meeting on the > 13th 13.00-14.30hours > > OSHCA had also been given 2 adjoining booths for the MyGOSSCON > exhibition from 6-7 Dec 2007. MIMOS Malaysia has developed prototypes > of the low cost laptops using the linux OS, similar to the InkMedia and > that of the OLAP project. As there are few takers to showcase FOSS > applications in health, I'm talking to MIMOS to make these available at > the OSHCA booths. I still hope to be able to run a few FOSS applications > on a local server (if I can get volunteers to set them up) and make > available a few laptops for viewing these applications. I was given to > understand not to rely on internet connection during the exhibition > unless we pay for own connection - 3rd world scenario. At the same time, > I'm open to other options and positive suggestions are welcomed. > > Molly > > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > -- S.Chickerur, Asst.Professor, Department Of Information Science and Engineering M.S.Ramaiah Institute of Technology Vidya Soudha , MSRIT Post, Bangalore - 560 054 India. Phone : 91 - 80 - 23600822, 23606934, 23606936 Extn : 151 Fax : 91 - 80 - 23606936 Website : (0)www.msrit.edu (P)www.freewebs.com/chickerursr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071129/a9f69686/attachment.htm From Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net Thu Nov 29 16:37:12 2007 From: Karsten.Hilbert at gmx.net (Karsten Hilbert) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets & brochures In-Reply-To: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> References: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <20071129083712.GA5068@merkur.hilbert.loc> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:12:24AM +0800, Molly Cheah wrote: > I would like to source for volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets/pamphlets > for low-cost production (either to be printed on coloured A4 size paper or > minimal colours) These are for distribution at the MoO market place at GK3. > OSHCA had been given a physical tent for an afternoon and 2 Pole meeting > sessions had been offered to us - one on health and the other on open > source. I had been asked to lead these two sessions. Will the PDCOM Open Source source be on display ? Thanks, Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Thu Nov 29 17:22:31 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets & brochures In-Reply-To: <20071129083712.GA5068@merkur.hilbert.loc> References: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> <20071129083712.GA5068@merkur.hilbert.loc> Message-ID: <474E84D7.2040309@pc.jaring.my> I don't know. Karsten Hilbert wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:12:24AM +0800, Molly Cheah wrote: > > >> I would like to source for volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets/pamphlets >> for low-cost production (either to be printed on coloured A4 size paper or >> minimal colours) These are for distribution at the MoO market place at GK3. >> OSHCA had been given a physical tent for an afternoon and 2 Pole meeting >> sessions had been offered to us - one on health and the other on open >> source. I had been asked to lead these two sessions. >> > > Will the PDCOM Open Source source be on display ? > > Thanks, > Karsten > From alvin.marcelo at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 18:02:25 2007 From: alvin.marcelo at gmail.com (Alvin Marcelo) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets & brochures In-Reply-To: <474E84D7.2040309@pc.jaring.my> References: <474E11F8.30306@pc.jaring.my> <20071129083712.GA5068@merkur.hilbert.loc> <474E84D7.2040309@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: <2c9aeb960711290202t2f55ec5bif6aaae659c23271a@mail.gmail.com> CHITS will be there. Any other FOSS application? IOSN ASEAN would like to meet all the FOSS health apps developers/managers an SouthEast Asia for a possible conference next year... On 11/29/07, Molly Cheah wrote: > I don't know. > Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:12:24AM +0800, Molly Cheah wrote: > > > > > >> I would like to source for volunteers to design OSHCA leaflets/pamphlets > >> for low-cost production (either to be printed on coloured A4 size paper > or > >> minimal colours) These are for distribution at the MoO market place at > GK3. > >> OSHCA had been given a physical tent for an afternoon and 2 Pole meeting > >> sessions had been offered to us - one on health and the other on open > >> source. I had been asked to lead these two sessions. > >> > > > > Will the PDCOM Open Source source be on display ? > > > > Thanks, > > Karsten > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From joris at bikalabs.com Thu Nov 29 22:31:43 2007 From: joris at bikalabs.com (Joris Goudriaan) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] Bika Health open source medical LIMS discussion Message-ID: <474ECD4F.5090708@bikalabs.com> Dear OSCHCA Mailing List Members, We are drawing much interest and offers of help for getting Bika's open source LIMS for health laboratories developed and we would like to co-ordinate the project better Adding a patient demographics module to Bika LIMS 2 is the first step and a design has been completed with sponsorship from Advanta Labs. We are currently awaiting development quotes A fully fledged health LIMS would require more, specifically in the areas of Micro-Biological analysis, health insurance and medical record interfaces. We would like to develop a SQL database back-end too. If co-operation and sponsorship can be drawn from all interested parties, a good design and affordable development could be achieved We are setting up a Google group to discuss requirements and plans. We would really appreciate your input. Please sign up at http://groups.google.com/group/bika-health via the 'Apply for group membership ' link. Since mail is distributed from members only, there's little potential for spam The Bika Health project page remains the central repository for project deliverables, and specs and plans for development will be filed here. Patient use cases and designs are up at Bika Health 1.0 A suggested top level plan 1. We accumulate common requirements - your intellectual sponsorship needed - and identify the gap with Bika Health 1 2. Bika Lab Systems' contribution will be to write a use case doc and top level development plan, identifying measurable deliverables. We publish it 3. Get quotes for the development per deliverable 4. Here we would require you to look in your pockets but we open sponsorship to involve philanthropists and angels to co-sponsor deliverables. Some very successful OSS "social source" sponsorship campaigns have been executed in this way at Fundable, see https://www.fundable.org/groupactions/groupaction.2007-09-05.1566756711 5. When sponsorship achieved, we commission and manage the development to acceptance Please send us you comment and suggestions to improve the above. Best regards and looking forward to your involvement. -- Joris Goudriaan Sales & Marketing Manager Bika Lab Systems ================================ TEL: +27 (0)21 791 19 99 FAX: +27 (0)21 791 19 99 CELL: +27 (0)83 656 22 81 E-MAIL: joris@bikalabs.com WEB: http://www.bikalabs.com http://bika.sourceforge.net ================================ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.oshca.org/pipermail/foss_health/attachments/20071129/2464f342/attachment.html From drcheah at pc.jaring.my Fri Nov 30 07:24:15 2007 From: drcheah at pc.jaring.my (Molly Cheah) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] The OSS Revolution - Driving Business Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry Message-ID: <474F4A1F.9050705@pc.jaring.my> Dear all, As I am preparing my presentation for the MGOSSCON Conference next week, with the topic "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry", I came across some very interesting urls that I would like to share with you. Naturally, if you have constructive and interesting comments/views on the approaches that I could incorporate into my presentation, I would welcome them. I am looking for ideas that have business relevance. You are also free to communicate this to me offline. I plan to discuss OSS concepts under the four broad categories or families of open source licenses: * strong copyleft licenses * weak copyleft licenses * no copyleft licenses * other open source licenses as mentioned in the url below and their relevance and impact on healthcare industry. http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html Open Source Licenses Are Not All the Same http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/open_source_licenses_are_obsol.html Open Source Licenses are Obsolete http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/07/03/HNoreilly_1.html http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/is_open_source_1.html Is "open source" now completely meaningless? http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/03/03/fauxpen-source Fauxpen-source? Update on the MyGOSSCON exhibition. OSHCA has been given one corner booth. I received an email from the conference organising company yesterday that the Chief Secretary to the Malaysian Government and VIPs will stop at the OSHCA booth for 3-5 minutes. If you wish whoever will be manning the booth to present your product, services etc. please let me know. Again feel free to communicate with me offline. Molly From fred.trotter at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 23:07:27 2007 From: fred.trotter at gmail.com (Fred Trotter) Date: Sun Jan 27 17:55:28 2008 Subject: [FOSS_health] The OSS Revolution - Driving Business Applications: Using OSS in Healthcare Industry In-Reply-To: <474F4A1F.9050705@pc.jaring.my> References: <474F4A1F.9050705@pc.jaring.my> Message-ID: I have written on the subject of FOSS licensing in medicine extensively. The article below is much more relevant and recent than the other articles that you mentioned. Since your talk will around the same issues, I would welcome your comments. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/sharing_medical_software_foss_licensing_in_medicine -FT On Nov 29, 2007 5:24 PM, Molly Cheah wrote: > Dear all, > > As I am preparing my presentation for the MGOSSCON Conference next week, > with the topic "The OSS Revolution - Driving Business Applications: > Using OSS in Healthcare Industry", I came across some very interesting > urls that I would like to share with you. Naturally, if you have > constructive and interesting comments/views on the approaches that I > could incorporate into my presentation, I would welcome them. I am > looking for ideas that have business relevance. You are also free to > communicate this to me offline. > > I plan to discuss OSS concepts under the four broad categories or > families of open source licenses: > > * strong copyleft licenses > * weak copyleft licenses > * no copyleft licenses > * other open source licenses > > as mentioned in the url below and their relevance and impact on > healthcare industry. > > http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/11/18/licenses.html > Open Source Licenses Are Not All the Same > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/open_source_licenses_are_obsol.html > Open Source Licenses are Obsolete > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/07/03/HNoreilly_1.html > > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/is_open_source_1.html > Is "open source" now completely meaningless? > > http://www.openparenthesis.org/2007/03/03/fauxpen-source > Fauxpen-source? > > Update on the MyGOSSCON exhibition. OSHCA has been given one corner > booth. I received an email from the conference organising company > yesterday that the Chief Secretary to the Malaysian Government and VIPs > will stop at the OSHCA booth for 3-5 minutes. If you wish whoever will > be manning the booth to present your product, services etc. please let > me know. Again feel free to communicate with me offline. > > Molly > > > > > _______________________________________________ > FOSS_health mailing list > FOSS_health@oshca.org > http://mailman.oshca.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/foss_health > -- Fred Trotter http://www.fredtrotter.com