FANDOM


Licensing

Is GPL is too specific? I am not a specialist in licensing issues, but there might be other public open-source licences that could be used. Maybe the page should be entitled "Open Source Medical Software (OSMS)".

Anonymous.


You are right, GPL is very specific. But here is my problem. Open Source Software software (I think) doesn't mean the Source code can be reused in another project. It only states that when you distribute you're program, you also give away you're code. It can than be used to help your client to make their own patches an addons. But doesn't automatically give them the right to make another software and distribute it.

Open source is better than closed source (it solves point 3 of the manifesto), but there is also Free software. The problem is the term Free. Everyone thinks Free as free beer, in fact it's supposed to be Free as free speach. This is why the french therm "Libre software" is starting to pop-up.

My view is the following: I'm interested in Open Soure and Free software that are compatible whith the GPL licence. For if one day, we have all we need to make a Medical Linux Distriution, it should be released under the GPL licence.

PS, you should make an account, you're a good contributor.


Delaroyas 14:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I disagree in part. Have a look at the following link: http://opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php...

PS, ok, my next contribution will be as a logged used.


Thanks for setting me strait. Open Source is more restricted than I understood. And I also agree we should stay as general as possible. This is why the therm Open Source is also problematic, it does not include all Free Software. I've seen the term FLOSS for Free and Open Source Sofware. Maybe MFOSS? or MedFOSS? It could also use health instead of medical.


Delaroyas 15:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to rant a bit. Pine, the email client, is considered Open Source; yet, you're not allowed to distribute modified copies of it. Is this what we want from medical software? I don't think so. The pine developers stop working on it? There is a security problem discovered? Great... now no one will ever be able to distribute a secure version.

I think the term "Open Source" did more harm than good in the free software world. Now instead of fighting against freedom, proprietary software companies are fighting against the harmless and popular "open source" term, giving rise to such absurdities as "Shared Source" that touches none of the real issues related to the proprietary software spirit. So now the general public is brought to believe that being able to peruse source code is all that matters to the GNU/Linux users, that Microsoft is a transparent company - and freedom is once again sacrificed.

How many projects with an "Open" in their name are not free? OpenOffice needs the proprietary Sun Java runtime for their Microsoft Access imitation...

"Open Source" was originally devised as a means to popularize free software and it just shows ESR's and Bruce Perens' (and others) perspective. Freedom can be traded for popularity. Just look at the latest statements of ESR.

FLOSS is redundant (all free software is open source...), but it just might be the only way to reverse the damage ESR and BP (and others) did.

ptaff, 2006-09-25


I agree complely with you (at least what understood!). I am also a believer of the FSF philosophy. I'm just not sure what to do with your reasoning. The Wikis goal is to gather as much information on all free or open source software. Including legal issues and their lisence. It would be sad to not get info on a software just because the projects manager prefers the Open Source movement/term.

Delaroyas 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


What I meant by that rant was that "Open Source" does not guarantee freedom, so though some "Open Source" projects are free software, others are not. Where every package stands must be clear from the start, to avoid complications (code merging, distribution) later.

The term used by a project manager is IMHO irrelevant - the only thing that matters is the license. Somebody releasing stuff under the GPL and calling it "Open Source" is just using a weak vocabulary.

ptaff 11:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Name/Location of the Wiki

On september 12th I made a post on Proposed_wikis to develop the idea of a Wiki on Free/Open Source software.

A couple of days later, I made a request for wiki on GPL medical software, it was regected:

Wikia Creation Requests wrote:

> Hello,

> Thank you for your Wikia request.

>> Request for a new wiki: from Delaroyas, GPL medical software at http://medgpl.wikia.com

>> The wiki would be dedicated to GPL medical software, existing and non-existing.

> There is already an existing wiki for all Open Source software at <http://oss.wikia.com> where you are welcome to add the content you proposed.

> There is also a wikia concentrating on development of Open Source software at <http://opensource.wikia.com/>

> sannse


If the mini-wiki continues to grow, we will need a place to move. So we will need a final name, and decide were we want to continue. A request could be resent, if the project has grown a bit, maybe it will have more chance of being accepted.

Delaroyas 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of the wiki

Here are the current suggestions:

  • MedGPL too restrictive
  • OSMS (Open Source Medical Software) only open source
  • MFOSS MedFOSS seems better.
  • MedFOSS (MEDical Free and Open Source Software)
  • TraInHS (Transparent and Independant Health Software)


Delaroyas 02:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Other ideas

These must be improved, but might spur further ideas, especially for acronyms:

  • Diagnu
  • FORMOL ( Free/Open Repository of Medicine-Oriented Libraries? )
  • FLESH ( Free/Libre Empowering Software for Health )
  • OSMOSIS ( Open Source Medical-Oriented Software In Store ) only open source

ptaff - 2006-09-24


I like all those suggesitions. I would strike out OSMOSIS because I don't like using Opensouce without Free. FORMOL is great, but I agree that Libraries is inadequate. I also like FLESH, but would prefer somthing other than Empowering.

Thanks for the GREAT suggestions.

Delaroyas 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Location for the Wiki

NAME is the future name of the wiki (to be decided in the previous section).

  • Ideal solution would be something like:

NAME.wikia.com

Or, we could build a NAME category in oss or opensource.

  • oss is a year old wiki containing 20 artices. It seams to be in activity.
  • opensource is a 2 week old wiki containing 2 articles.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.