[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed install made easy - maybe

From: J Busser
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed install made easy - maybe
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:36:59 -0700

At 2:09 PM +0200 10/1/05, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
In my opinion the project cannot help the company to support the user. The
project will offer the best documentation it can but the hand-holding part in
support is up to the company. If the company in turn needs support/training
it can ask the project members but the project itself has no obligation to

I think we are here talking about overcoming the obstacles to FLOSS adoption.

I agree it should not be the project, i.e. not a direct goal of the Project or the Project members, to do this, however it is IMO a "dependency" for our project.

Therefore people who *may happen* to be Project members, may undertake to try and get this obstacle dealt with, but separately, and/or as a member of a separate, more-general Open Source advocacy project. Or even unofficially, in any extra roles they may carry. For example, I remain busy (while providing input into my local heath administration) to help them know the importance of letting health data be connected-to by more than just Internet Explorer, and to have the IT departments get familiar with (and test) Macs and Linux boxes for connectivity.

And if that "project" were to be a business, my only stipulations for GNUmed members would be that this be known to our Project, and that while holding such interest in a business none of our members be at the same time a Director for GNUmed. (We would have to come to some understanding of what we want to mean by an "interest" in case it is possible for someone to advise or direct or serve on the Board of a company without themselves getting financial gain out of it.)

I have decried public fund sponsorship that disappears into private software that is then re-sold to the public. But a legitimate point, made in response by someone elsewhere, is the importance of a private company not holding the license to open source software that is being developed. They made the point that even a University if it holds the license to an Open Source software, it can change the license at a future release. Hence, if we wish to be strong in defense of the point, we should create a Foundation modelled after an appropriate example, yes? That way people volunteering (or agencies contributing funds) might have fewer worries about their contributions being "taken" into what later becomes a for-profit enterprise.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]