Re: FreeDiams data licensing issue
Le 19 janvier 2012 15:13, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> a écrit :
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:36:07PM +0100, Eric Maeker wrote:
>> > I totally miss your point why you want to move free source code to
>> > non-free just because it handles some data from there.
>> 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.
>
> I have no idea about these issues but as I layed out in my previous mail
> (quoted above) a minimum dataset which proves the functionality of the
> code in main would be sufficient. Other data could be provided by other
> means (for instance downloadable via web which has additional advantages
> regarding updating those data.
>
>> 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
>> the data).
>> I do not have neither the time, nor the money to search deep in laws.
>
> Well, this is a totally different thing under what license you are
> releasing your code. However, you once released GPLed code into the
> wild and people will find it there. You as the copyright owner are free
> to put your future work under a different license (whatever reasons
> you might have to do so).
>
>> Applications are useful without the DDI feature, but sure they are
>> less interesting.
>> 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
>> non-free licence.
>> 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).
>
> I do not knoa your reasons for doing so nor can I guess what business
> model you are following but from a Debian Med perspective I would
> consider this as a step backwards. While you can perfectly do whatever
> you want and there is no need that you handle for the profit of Debian
> Med I just want to express my opinion that I'd consider this a sad move.
>
>> My questions are:
>> - does anyone can help us with this licencing issue ?
>
> I admit I do not fully understand your intention and thus I can not
> help (nor am I a licensing expert and would claim I could help you even
> if I would have fully understood your plan).
>
>> - do this configuration (a non-free plugin: code+data, and a free
>> package for the full app) can
>> suite to the debian social contract ?
>
> If a package needs components in non-free it needs to go into contrib.
In fact, the free package (the application itself) can be fully used
without the extra-plugins.
Just like video readers and non-free plugs or mp3.
>> - 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 ?
>
> This question is too complicated for me.
>
> In any case it reminds me that we need to ask ftpmaster for removal of
> the current freemedforms from Debian main because it contains non-free
> data.
Unfortunately, yes, you should ask for, till we find the best way to follow...
This will be the true step backward.
We have FreeDiams 0.4.2 in debian squeeze, and FreeDiams 0.5.4.
The FreeMedForms EMR is not yet packaged.
--
Eric Maeker, MD (FR)
http://www.freemedforms.com/
http://www.ericmaeker.fr/
Reply to: