Re: FreeMedForms projet
Hi,
I can try to imagine what you are going through. What do you mean by
"documentation is not available" ?
Best,
Sebastian
Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2020, 17:34:35 CET schrieb Eric Maeker:
> Oh! There is a misunderstanding here!
> Let me correct my words:
> -> full code of each stable released version is packaged and freely
> available (but undocumented since v1.0.0).
>
> Code is considered 100% stable (and released) when :
> - it perfectly passes every the unit-tests in debug mode with MacOs,
> Win32/64, Debian 64,
> - it perfectly builds in each platform and
> - it perfectly passes manual tests on the release bin for each platform.
> Manual tests are available on our main website : freemedforms.com
> -> This is because we do not have time to test and pack all sub-versions
> like before.
> Currently v1.1.0 does passes all tests under MacOs, does build correctly on
> Debian in debug mode but not in release, and is not tested on Win32/64
> (build process, unit-tests, installation process, config process...)
> because WinDevs quit the project. So it is considered as a pre-version
> available only to testers (MacOs).
>
> We know that at least two forks exists (this is what our private data
> server's log tells us). We do not receive any patch, invitation to git
> repos, or any kind of official informations or queries.
>
> In consequence, we decide that our git repository will not be freely
> accessible. Approval does only concern the FreeMedForms' git and the
> ability to join the project as member (coder, tester, communication
> manager...).
>
> I hope that the situation is clearer for you.
>
> Belle journée
> Cordialement
>
>
> <http://maeker.fr> *Dr Maeker Éric*
>
> *Gériatre, psychogériatre*
> eric.maeker@gmail.com
> Twitter @DrMaeker <https://www.twitter.com/drmaeker>
> RPPS 10002307964
>
> maeker.fr Site personnel
> empathies.fr Association Emp@thies
> freemedforms.com Logiciel médical
>
> La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël
>
>
> Le ven. 10 janv. 2020 à 14:26, Daniel Hakimi <dan.j.hakimi@gmail.com> a
>
> écrit :
> > If the package is available under the GPL, it strikes me that requiring
> > any non-trivial approval to obtain source under that license would not be
> > allowed. If the form is just a check box verifying that you have received
> > object code, maybe, but this sounds like it may be a license violation.
> > Can
> > we clarify what the approval process entails? How much information is
> > required, and for what reasons might people be rejected?
> >
> > However, if some third party were to obtain this source, build from it,
> > and make it available, that version of the code would be perfectly Free.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 08:15 Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 07:45:34AM -0500, Daniel Hakimi wrote:
> >> > Can you please clarify -- you said the license was the same, but you
> >>
> >> didn't
> >>
> >> > say what that license actually was. What license is your code available
> >> > under?
> >>
> >> GPL-3+ [1]
> >>
> >> BTW, I think if a Debian package is published the requirement to sign
> >> anything to get the source code is useless since interested parties can
> >> easily download the Debian source package.
> >>
> >> This is for instance true for the latest source in Git which just has a
> >> compile bug which we desperately try to fix to finalise the Qt4
> >> removal[2].
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> Andreas.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/freemedforms-project/blob/master/COPYIN
> >> G.txt [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=874880#104
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 07:18 Eric Maeker <eric.maeker@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > Hi,
> >> > >
> >> > > For now, our NPO is too poor to engage in consulting or to pay
> >>
> >> external
> >>
> >> > > developments and we awfully miss time to manage all aspects of a
> >>
> >> widely
> >>
> >> > > collaborative project.
> >> > > Sounds like we are travelling to "contrib" or "non-free" package ? Or
> >>
> >> may
> >>
> >> > > be "non-debian" ?
> >> > >
> >> > > Belle journée
> >> > > Cordialement
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > <http://maeker.fr> *Dr Maeker Éric*
> >> > >
> >> > > *Gériatre, psychogériatre*
> >> > > eric.maeker@gmail.com
> >> > > Twitter @DrMaeker <https://www.twitter.com/drmaeker>
> >> > > RPPS 10002307964
> >> > >
> >> > > maeker.fr Site personnel
> >> > > empathies.fr Association Emp@thies
> >> > > freemedforms.com Logiciel médical
> >> > >
> >> > > La gériatrie, c'est la médecine pour les pères et les mères Noël
> >> > >
> >> > > Le ven. 10 janv. 2020 à 03:03, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> a écrit :
> >> > >> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 8:00 PM Eric Maeker wrote:
> >> > >> > Free Source code is provided to any demander approved by the NPO,
> >>
> >> code
> >>
> >> > >> licence is still the same.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I don't like this, people seeking source code should not have to get
> >> > >> approval first. That said, I note that the source code is available
> >> > >> directly from the site without approval.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > But, the code documentation is only reserved to approved
> >>
> >> developers by
> >>
> >> > >> this NPO.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I definitely don't like this, it would be much better to publish the
> >> > >> code documentation to everyone under a free license.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > We do encourage new dev to apply to our NPO and to sign a CLA
> >>
> >> (which is
> >>
> >> > >> still a draft piece of text actually).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I don't like this either, it would be much better for devs to
> >> > >> release
> >> > >> their contributions under the same license that you do, then you can
> >> > >> incorporate their changes, preserving their copyright over their
> >> > >> changes and passing on their license to you to downstream users. So
> >> > >> the whole of the software is then owned by a variety of copyright
> >> > >> holders, each of whom also have to abide by the license given to
> >> > >> them
> >> > >> by the other contributors. The license on the software then cannot
> >> > >> be
> >> > >> changed without contributor consensus, so it becomes a much more
> >>
> >> solid
> >>
> >> > >> project from a user perspective. Single-owner projects are much more
> >> > >> easy to turn proprietary.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/06/09/do-not-need-cla.html
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > The problem is that FreeMedForms EHR needs access to private data
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Could you explain why this data needs to be private? It would be
> >> > >> much
> >> > >> better to release it publicly under a free license.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > The private data are only available to paying partners to the NPO.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Is this the only form of income that the NPO has available to it? It
> >> > >> sounds like the NPO is seeking what is called an "Open Core"
> >> > >> business
> >> > >> model, where the core part of the project is public and freely
> >> > >> licensed but addons are proprietary. The incentives here can be
> >> > >> quite
> >> > >> perverse, often companies seek to prevent outside contributions to
> >>
> >> the
> >>
> >> > >> core or even remove features from the core so that more people start
> >> > >> paying them for the proprietary addons. So I encourage you to
> >>
> >> consider
> >>
> >> > >> alternative income streams.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I think the best option for the would be to consult with as many of
> >> > >> the practices, clinics, hospitals and emergency departments that you
> >> > >> know about that use the software and find out the best way for the
> >>
> >> NPO
> >>
> >> > >> to have enough resources to continue development consistent with the
> >> > >> interests of the community of folks who use the software. Examples
> >> > >> of
> >> > >> potential income models could include: large grants/sponsorships
> >> > >> that
> >> > >> cover development and other costs, a membership subscriber base that
> >> > >> pays for all maintenance and development costs, or more of a
> >> > >> crowd-funding model where folks interested in specific features pay
> >> > >> for their development, or a community of consultants that do all
> >> > >> work
> >> > >> on the project as requested by their customers or possibly a
> >> > >> combination of these and other options.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Forks trie to access our private data using the open sourced
> >> > >> > server
> >> > >>
> >> > >> protocol (query to a php script).
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I would suggest to just make the data public and under a free
> >>
> >> license,
> >>
> >> > >> but if you don't want to do that, the way to go would be to setup an
> >> > >> e-commerce site where people have to pay before they can download
> >> > >> the
> >> > >> private data and then have in the software a way to load the locally
> >> > >> saved data that has been downloaded from the site. I believe there
> >>
> >> are
> >>
> >> > >> some freely licensed e-commerce tools in Debian and the consultants
> >> > >> that offer support for Debian in your area might be able to help
> >> > >> with
> >> > >> finding, installing and configuring them.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> https://www.debian.org/consultants/
> >> > >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-consultants/
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> bye,
> >> > >> pabs
> >> > >>
> >> > >> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: