up a level
post article
search
admin
Contact
main
|
| Possible VistA Licensing Controversy? |
 |
 |
 |
 Posted by Saint on Thursday November 09, 2000 @ 02:39 PM
from the gnu-or-not-to-gnu dept.
Free and open source medical sofware advocates on the openhealth-list discussed a possible licensing difficulty between the VistA project and the recently announced Gnu Public Licensing (GPL'ing) of Sanchez Computer Associates GT.M database. The debate centers on the fact that VistA, a large collection of Veterans Administration medical software programs, is public domain. The source code for the programs are available by the Freedom of Information Act and has no license at all. However, VistA requires a database like GT.M to run. Digg this article
Under the terms of the GPL: '...A related issue concerns combining a free program with non-free code. Such a combination would inevitably be non-free;
whichever freedoms are lacking for the non-free part would be lacking for the whole as well. To permit such combinations would
open a hole big enough to sink a ship. Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug this hole: anything added to or combined
with a copylefted program must be such that the larger combined version is also free and copylefted...'
The question appears to come down to whether code obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act is already considered 'Free' by the GPL and/or if VistA is modified to run with a GPL'ed program whether it automatically becomes GPL'ed.
The GPL, or 'copyleft' was developed by the Free Software Foundation in order to keep software that is released under the license and its derivative works 'free'. Free software according to the GPL and the Free Software Foundation is frequently defined as 'Free as in speech, not as in beer.' to denote that the software is not free of charge, just freely available for end users to view, modify and improve.
It has at times been compared to and critized for its virus like nature in that all derivative works and any software combined with GPL'ed software, must become GPL'ed.
There are other licenses that have different restrictions, particularly with regard to commercial use of software such as the FreeBSD License. The Free Software Foundation does not consider these licenses to be 'Free' licenses.
<
|
>
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
GPL is not public domain
by Andrew P. Ho on Thursday November 09, 2000 @ 03:31 PM
|
Public Domain + GPL --> GPL
Public domain code can be combined with copyleft code to produce a copyleft product.
GPL --> GPL
However, once a code is licenced under GPL, it cannot be made public domain since copyleft is a special form of copyright. I think the key here is the difference between "run with" and "licensed under". I am sure public domain code can "run with" GPL code without automatically becoming GPL. Remember, the licensing terms apply only when you decide to accept the license presented to you. Therefore, once public domain code is modified and the resulting product is presented to you and you agree to used the product "licensed under" GPL, then GPL's restrictive terms apply.
GPL --> Public Domain
As a GPL product, it is copyrighted to somebody and can be made public domain only if the copyright holder puts it into the public domain. (or when the copyright expires).
The fact that the new GPL product is based on some public domain code is not relevant - since public domain is not "contagious" like GPL. It is also permissible to build proprietary copyrighted products from public domain code.
I hope this helps clarify the confusion.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Small detail.
by BK on Thursday November 09, 2000 @ 05:13 PM
|
In the
Public Domain + GPL --> GPL
situation. Adding Public Domain code to a GPL product would cause a "fork" in the PD codebase. The new product would be GPL. Whatever was in the public domain would remain there.
PD is suitable for ANY use. Including the simple process of slapping on a license of your choice. The trick, of course, would be to prove any random copy came from your "licensed" copy ,and not the PD source.
Once you co-mingle PD and GPL'ed code. It becomes pretty clear which is which.
The interesting part, for me, is the concept of GPL'ing a *database*.
How does that work? Is a query considered a "linking" for the purposes of GPL'ness? Can the data be stored in MS-SQL Server? Can we use use a key value taken from a GPL'ed database to query a non-GPL'ed database?
The whole concept of GPL'ing a database sounds broken enough that a court would end up very, very, confused. Confused courts do bad things just to make a point to the stupid.
Note to Stallman: Sounds like we need a GDPL, General Database Pubic License, real soon now.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
Re: Small detail.
by Anonymous on Thursday November 09, 2000 @ 07:43 PM
|
When you say GPL'ing a database, do you mean database as in "a collection of data" or as in "a piece of software which manages a collection of data"? For the latter, which I think this discussion is about, I don't see any problem. The former could come under copyright too, but only in limited conditions and I don't think the wording of the GPL was really meant to handle that case. Also note that Stallman has spoken against copyrights on collections of data before.
|
[
Reply to this ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The following
comments are owned by whoever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
