Re: FreeDiams data licensing issue
This is the following of the discussion (I missed the debian list in
my precedent post).
Le 19 janvier 2012 13:04, Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org> a écrit :
> Hi Eric,
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:29:06PM +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
>> Le 18 janvier 2012 17:09, Andreas Tille <email@example.com> a écrit :
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 02:28:51PM +0100, Eric MAEKER wrote:
>> >> I can provide a 100% free database using the only FDA drug database, even if in this case, FreeDiams/FreeMedForms lost its main useful (and powerful) part. This does not make sense.
>> >> Should we place the FreeMedForms project in Debian non-free ?
>> >> Do you have any suggestion for us ?
>> > IMHO it would be the best idea to provide the FreeMedForms binary with
>> > some simple basic but in some aspect useful data. FreeMedForms is free
>> > code and should remain in free if there is any useful data (to
>> > demonstrate its functionality). The rationale for this suggestion is
>> > that you can make Depend / Recommend other packages in main from it.
>> > You can put the "real" data in non-free and the user is free to install
>> > these from there.
>> Ok. I'm planning to put a part of the code in non-free too and keep
>> the whole app in GPLv3. Is that possible ? The idea is to have a
>> non-free plugin with the drug interactions engines and data. A package
>> can be build and provided compiled in non-free.
>> Any comment ?
> I totally miss your point why you want to move free source code to
> non-free just because it handles some data from there.
> My suggestion is to keep all the GPLv3 code in main. If you do not like
> this please explain more verbosely why to make me understand.
> In addition to this GPLed code try to add a minimum set of free data to
> enable some basic operation. Could be a package freediams-data-free (or
> whatever you might like to call it).
> In non-free you can add a pure data package with an "alternative" set of
> data and name the package freediams-data-non-free (or similar).
> Alternatively you can add a FreeDiams function: Download data. You can
> independently from your code provide a data update which might have the
> extra advantage of beeing able to update the data independetly from any
> code (and thus Debian release) which IMHO makes perfect sense. When
> doing so please make sure to display the according licenses of these data
> in some way.
This is my point of view, please excuse the repetition.
The FreeMedForms project is the only open source medical project
that provide a drug-drug interaction (DDI) management. Unfortunatly,
to this day,
the data can not distributed freely (as understand by the debian
So, in the debian world, the project can not provide the DDI feature (in the
Like all open source project, we have to face code and data misappropriation by
other commercial (or SaaS) project. These project does not, all, ask us for the
authorisation of usage. There is a (massive) request of this feature in
EMR. You have to know that, in France, some commercial EMR do not provide this
feature (DDI). I feel a bit disappointed by this misappropriation.
So, after three+ long years of coding, data mining, debugging, I'd
like to protect
a part of the work and to protext myself. Cause I'm not a licencing guru. I
don't know how I can be involved in a copyright affair (as provider of
I do not have neither the time, nor the money to search deep in laws.
Applications are useful without the DDI feature, but sure they are
So I'd like to provide the project applications fully GPLv3 **but**
the DDI features.
DDI including: non-free data and code that will be placed under a
Using this configuration, we can provide a fully open source EMR and a non-free,
no cost DDI plugin (code+data). Like this, the DDI are still available in the
Linux world and I feel well. If donators help us, we can redefine this non-free
licencing to GPLv3 later. And/or the DDI data (or other non-free data)
can be downloadable
from the apps (using private servers).
My questions are:
- does anyone can help us with this licencing issue ?
- do this configuration (a non-free plugin: code+data, and a free
package for the full app) can
suite to the debian social contract ?
- do I really have to care about anything if a hacker (involved in a law affair
of copyright) points me as provider of the data ?
Eric Maeker, MD (FR)