Re: [Gnumed-devel] Re: GNUmed install made easy - maybe

[J Busser]

At 2:09 PM +0200 10/1/05, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> In my opinion the project cannot help the company to support the user. The
> project will offer the best documentation it can but the hand-holding part in
> support is up to the company. If the company in turn needs support/training
> it can ask the project members but the project itself has no obligation to
> help.

I think we are here talking about overcoming the obstacles to FLOSS adoption.

I agree it should not be the project, i.e. not a direct goal of the 
Project or the Project members, to do this, however it is IMO a 
"dependency" for our project.

Therefore people who *may happen* to be Project members, may 
undertake to try and get this obstacle dealt with, but separately, 
and/or as a member of a separate, more-general Open Source advocacy 
project. Or even unofficially, in any extra roles they may carry. For 
example, I remain busy (while providing input into my local heath 
administration) to help them know the importance of letting health 
data be connected-to by more than just Internet Explorer, and to have 
the IT departments get familiar with (and test) Macs and Linux boxes 
for connectivity.

And if that "project" were to be a business, my only stipulations for 
GNUmed members would be that this be known to our Project, and that 
while holding such interest in a business none of our members be at 
the same time a Director for GNUmed. (We would have to come to some 
understanding of what we want to mean by an "interest" in case it is 
possible for someone to advise or direct or serve on the Board of a 
company without themselves getting financial gain out of it.)

I have decried public fund sponsorship that disappears into private 
software that is then re-sold to the public. But a legitimate point, 
made in response by someone elsewhere, is the importance of a private 
company not holding the license to open source software that is being 
developed. They made the point that even a University if it holds the 
license to an Open Source software, it can change the license at a 
future release. Hence, if we wish to be strong in defense of the 
point, we should create a Foundation modelled after an appropriate 
example, yes? That way people volunteering (or agencies contributing 
funds) might have fewer worries about their contributions being 
"taken" into what later becomes a for-profit enterprise.