FreePM Releases 0.5.2b (MedMan)

A new beta of FreePM has been released. It is now on the DEMO site and posted for download at freepm.org and on SourceForge. Dr. Chason Hayes has done quite alot of code clean up and updated the documentation on the SourceForge site. This release has a new interface for the Medication Manager. It allows you to use FreePM just as a medication management tool without having to deal with the entire application interface. This was
done to promote the use of FreePM for this purpose. The interface looks a lot cleaner than in the past. Any patients created here will still be available when upgrading versions. Try this link or download your own copy and put it to work. By popular demand the online demo login and password have been eliminated.

LinuxToday: Penguins vs the Dismal Science

This should be the last in a series of articles on the economics of free and open source software. In a ‘Where are we going?’ type article, by Lou Grinzo of LinuxToday. Grinzo holds a degree in “the dismal science” of economics which he states is prone to say ‘On the other hand…’. His most salient point is: ‘…Linux distribution companies will never grow very much…The open source
model eviscerates their revenue stream, making the outlook for these companies pretty grim.

On the other hand (hey, you were warned) aren’t we in a wholesale movement away from “bits for bucks”
to a services and subscriptions model, anyway? I believe we are…The big unknown in all this is how much people will be willing to
pay for which subscription services…’
Keep in mind however, that open source medical computing places another level of economic complexity on this since it can be seen as a public good like roads and bridges. The other difference is that the current closed-source model isn’t working very well for medicine.

‘…A key main reason there’s so much uncertainty in the industry right now is simply because we’re in
between equilibrium states. The prior state saw the closed source software/bits for bucks model
dominate, with free support, later moving almost entirely to paid support. In that state we had
software-only companies of all sizes making a profit, from one-person shareware shops to outfits like our
cousins up in Redmond. It was and largely still is an economically viable business model, and it fueled a
lot of companies and some spectacular investment portfolios.

The next equilibrium point will be more oriented toward open source, and I suspect that in the long run
this will all but eliminate the software-only companies. There will be a lot of consolidation as companies
merge and acquire each other, and also evolution, as companies try to stay independent and convert
themselves into service companies. I won’t guess how far this new equilibrium point will be from the old
one, in terms of either time or degree of change from the last point; I don’t think anyone can tell for sure
while we’re in the middle of the transition.

The really interesting thing is that the further we go along this path, the more software will be produced by
either the stereotypical open source project, staffed by people scratching an itch and not getting paid for
their work, or by large companies, like IBM, HP, Compaq, Intel, and others, that have a financial
incentive to spend big money on software they can give away.’

BSD license vs. GPL

Nikolai Bezroukov has an in-depth paper on the relative merits of BSD style open source license versus the GPL ‘free’ license. Particularly with regard to their economic ramifications. This article appears to be comprehensive, reviewing all the various licenses. ‘…one of the most controversial properties of GPL is the viral property of GPL 2. In essence if you the author of some useful addition to the GPL program that
was widely adopted and developed further you are denied any subsequent modification, enhancement of your ideas in…case you [are a] commercial developer. There are
several consequences of viral property of GPL v.2 (and IMHO this needs to be changed in v.3…’
Thanks to Tim Cook for this link.

LinuxWorld: Making Money On Open Source

Nicholas Petreley of LinuxWorld has a timely article on making money in the open source world. You may have read my recent article on free and open source basics. I intended to write a companion article on free and open source economics, because the follow-up question by my Ph.D brother was on the very same subject. However, here is Petreley’s somewhat pessimistic view. ‘…I don’t think we should depend on selling software. We should shift the focus, because clearly the real money to be made in the future is in hardware and
services…’

‘…companies like VA Linux continue to grow at a nice clip because their income is not dependent upon the success of the distributors. If anything, IBM showed its
confidence in Linux as it intensified its Linux support even while Linux stocks faltered…’

…I have a feeling that nobody has quite figured out how to make money on software in the open source economy. That isn’t surprising to me. Few people have
quite figured out how to make tubs of money on the Internet. People used to think a lot of money would be made on Web advertising, but that isn’t panning out
for most sites. I don’t see how it could. So a new economic model for the Internet must emerge, and I believe it will.’

OIO moves forward with 0.9.5 release

OIO, the open source metadata creation and interchange system, adds data cleaning, drill-down analysis, and other minor feature upgrades in this scheduled (monthly) release. 0.9.5 works with the newest Zope-2.2.4 and is compatible with all metadata and data from previous versions of the OIO.

Release Name: 0.9.5
This is a minor upgrade release. The really *exciting* enhancements
did not make it into this release. I had to spend most of the month
working on a grant submission to get some help for developing and
disseminating the OIO in the next three years. Keep those bug reports
and feature requests coming! I can also use some help writing a
tutorial. Please let me know if you can help.



New Features:

  1. Online help for Reports (including data merging and mining)
  2. Printable forms display
  3. Data cleaning tool: Add patients to patient list by criteria=missing data
  4. Automatic assignment of item number when an item is added without
    an item number to a form (max + 10)

  5. Checking for duplicate item and itemtype name during form creation
    to prevent duplication of item or itemtype names

  6. Drill-down display of number of patients vs. number of data instances
  7. Tests O.K. on Zope 2.2.4

Bugs fixed:

  1. Regular expression template does not work in Netscape browser – resolved
  2. Change Report does not work from Selected Reports

—-
The OIO download is only 350k and is available at:
Open-Outcomes.sourceforge.net

Alternatively, you can get a free public access account from
www.TxOutcome.Org
to try it first.

Please contact me at andrew_p_ho@eudoramail.com if you have any
questions/problems or would like to be a developer on this project.

Journal of Open Source Medical Computing First Call

The Journal of Open Source Medical Computing (JOSMC) is open and issuing its first call for papers. The Journal was started after the success of Linux Medical News indicated the need for a more scholarly publication. The Journal ‘…is an electronic forum for disseminating information on free
and open source medical computing.
Scholarly work on any aspect of free
and open source medical computing will be considered for
peer-reviewed publication…’
Read the editorial guidelines for information on submitting articles, editorials or features. There is a list of possible subject matter here.

Free and Open Source Basics

While relaxing this past Thanksgiving with my family, I asked my Ph.D brother how he liked Linux Medical News newsletter he replied that he liked the letter, particularly when my Chihuahua Cindy speaks, but the articles ‘are like a new language. I still don’t quite get what open source means.’ He’s not alone. It is time to review the basics.

Software is the stuff that drives computers, much like music on a Compact Disk drives a stereo, or a TV set requires a broadcast in order to be meaningful. Software is composed of odd little sonnets to a computer that are frequently laboriously constructed by a programmer. Here’s a short example of the software that drives part of LinuxMedicalNews. You don’t have to understand any of it, just know that it exists:


<dtml-in “objectItems([‘Poll Question’])”&#62

<dtml-var question&#62<br&#62

<dtml-in “objectItems([‘Poll Response’])”&#62

<input type=radio name=”responses:list” value=”<dtml-var questionId&#62<dtml-var id&#62″&#62

<dtml-var response&#62

</dtml-in&#62

</dtml-in&#62

The above is referred to as ‘source code’. Applying a computer to the source code makes the computer perform useful work. In the above case it is a small part of what makes the little poll box on the front page of LinuxMedNews work. In the terms of computer programming, it is the ‘source’ for achieving that work. As you can see from the source code example above, the intricacies of the source code can be quite complex and hence, time consuming to make. But once created, it can easily be transmitted by floppy disk, CD-ROM or the Internet and be reused by others. It can also be extended, changed or fixed if it has an error. It becomes a concentrated piece of knowledge, and one less thing for a programmer or software engineer to spend time on. Good source code can greatly accelerate what an engineer can create in a reasonable period of time.

LinuxMedNews frequently mentions the term ‘open source’. We can define open source now: it is source code that is distributed and available for a programmer or software engineer to reuse, extend or fix if it has errors. Precisely what I have done above. I’ve given you, the reader, my source code so that if you wanted to build a site like LinuxMedNews that displayed polls you could use the above programming to do it. This would save you an hour and possibly much more of work reproducing what has already been done.

Let’s pause for a moment to consider another term you may hear frequently: ‘Free’ software. I put it in quotes because it means freedom from closed-source restrictions, not free in the monetary sense. A common example is that free software is ‘free as in speech, not as in beer.’ Read more about what ‘Free’ software is here. The term ‘Free’ pre-dates ‘open source’ software and the two are quite similar except for some licensing differences which you can read about here. Let’s return to our source code discussion.

What happened with the above source code example is a demonstration of open source in action. I needed to run polls on LinuxMedNews. Howard Shaw, a colleague of mine who runs Houston Linux Users Group thought he could also use polls for his HLUG site. He wrote the source code above to fix an appearance problem in a previously written poll program and since I had a similar need, Howard sent it to me by e-mail to use on my site. He saved me a lot of work. In the future, I’ll return the favor.

‘I’ll return the favor’ is not just a haphazard statement in free software. It is the essence of free software. If you make changes to source code you’ve received, and distribute or publish those changes, you have to give anyone who uses it the same rights you have. Note that private changes for your own use remain private (see discussion below). In fact, the various free licenses require that you do so, or you don’t use the software.

The converse of this is ‘closed source’. Howard could have made things hard for me by denying me access to his source code. He could instead have said I’ll create your polls for you on my site and you can just link to the poll on my site. This would have made things quite inconvenient for me, as well as making me dependent on Howard for polls.

Closed source software is what most commercial software companies do. They usually do not give the customer source code, which is the means to produce the commercial programs. They only give the binary translations of these programs which a computer is happy with, but which is more or less useless for a person to read.

Without the source code, the customer isn’t free to fix, extend or change the software, they must rely on the company to do it for them. Whether customer changes are a priority for the company is subject to the goals and available resources of the company. There is no guarantee that the company will ‘do the right thing’ from the customers viewpoint. They do after all, have to stay in business. However, removing the restrictions on a customer fixing or extending the software, with the requirement that the fixes or extensions go back to the company, frees the customer from having to wait or otherwise be inconvenienced by closed source. The company benefits by reduced maintenance costs and free extensions for its products. More ways a company benefits can be found here.

These issues are particularly important for medical software. The same can be said for industries that need high availability and adaptability. The amount of engineering resources required to create and maintain medical software is large and expensive. Medical software has to be able to react to the ever changing winds of medical knowledge and delivery while still being reliable and cost effective. It needs to be interoperable and extendible so that novel applications such as patient simulators can be built from a stable base. These are goals that no single medical software company has been able to deliver. The resources are simply not available at a reasonable cost. Only free and open software holds the possibility of achieving these goals. That is why free and open source software is so compelling in medicine.

MedScape: TelePsychiatry

It seems like Tele-blank in medicine is all the rage. The latest is Tele-Psychiatry which appeared recently on Medscape (free login required). ‘Hi-tech video conferencing may be a cheap, effective means of providing
psychiatric care to patients in rural settings, according to a new study.

“A lot of these people would not have been seen because they don’t have resources locally or they wouldn’t otherwise travel,”…Dr. Hilty worried that HMOs might be
tempted to use the technology to replace the “real thing.” There may be economic advantages, “but the service would probably
not be equivalent,”…’

Skip to toolbar