[General Discussion] Feedback from the Melbourne Seminar

I wanted to express my positive reaction to the OpenVPMS seminar held last night (Wednesday 19 Oct, 2006) in Melbourne. I commend what you guys are doing and was especially impressed with Tony's enthusiasm and expertise, he most definately seemed to live up to his reputation as being one of the 'good guys' in the Veterinary software industry. As discussed with Tony afterwards, I hope that you guys manage to find some resources outside of development work to persue [url=http://www.opensource.org]Open Source Initiative[/url] (OSI) certification for your unique OpenVPMS license. In my opinion this will do much to counter the initial "yeah but that's not open source!" reaction of software developers such as myself to the Subscription model, and do much to encourage voluntary participation from the community (especially from Veterinary-offspring such as myself!). I've included here the "[url=http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php]Getting License Approval[/url]" section from the OSI website: [i] [b]Getting a License Approved[/b] 1. Choose a unique title for your license, different from any known titles of licenses. In particular, make it different from any of the existing approved licenses. Hint: doing a Google search for "Your License Title" (including the quotes) is useful. 2. Render the license in two formats: HTML and plain text. Put the HTML version on a web page. We will convert it into the same style as the existing approved licenses. You can help us by publishing it in that style yourself to save us the conversion step. 3. Create a legal analysis of the license as it complies with the terms of the Open Source Definition. Each paragraph of the license should be followed by an explanation of how the paragraph interacts with each numbered term of the Open Source Definition. The analysis should come from a licensed practitioner of the law in your country. Email this analysis to license-approval at our domain name, opensource.org. This document will remain confidential to the Open Source Initiative. 4. Prepare an email with three sections as described in the next three paragraphs. Send that email to the license-discuss mailing list (license-discuss at our domain name, opensource.org). The subject of your message should be "For Approval:" followed by the name of your license. * Tell us which existing OSI-approved license is most similar to your license. Explain why that license will not suffice for your needs. If your proposed license is derived from a license we have already approved, describe exactly what you have changed. This document is not part of the license; it is solely to help the license-discuss understand and review your license. * Explain how software distributed under your license can be used in conjunction with software distributed under other open source licenses. Which license do you think will take precedence for derivative or combined works? Is there any software license that is entirely incompatible with your proposed license?. * Include the plain text version of your license at the end of the email, either as an insertion or as an attachment. 5. You are invited to follow discussion of the licenses by subscribing to license-discuss-subscribe@opensource.org. This mailing-list is archived here. 6. If license-discuss mailing list members find that the license does not conform to the Open Source Definition, they will work with you to resolve the problems. Similarly, if we see a problem, we will work with you to resolve any problems uncovered in public comment. 7. As part of this process, we may also seek outside legal advice on license issues. 8. Once we are assured that the license conforms to the Open Source Definition and has received thorough discussion on license-discuss or by other reviewers, and there are no remaining issues that we judge significant, we will notify you that the license has been approved, copy it to our website, and add it to the list below.[/i] All the best with the project, Patrick Donelan (Son of Ted Donelan, West Doncaster Veterinary Clinic)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: Feedback from the Melbourne Seminar

Many thanks Pat for the feedback. As a vets within OpenVPMS we appreciate guys with expertise in the open source arena getting involved. I thought I should post some comments about the history of the OpenVPMS licence having been involved peripherally with the original legal discussions that led to the OpenVPMS license being somewhat of a hybrid licence in the Open Source community. We should clarify for all the vets getting glassy eyed at this point, that this discussion of licenses revolves around the adoption of certain principles when using the term "Open Source" to describe a software project. If you're aren't interested in technical semantic discussions, best to stop reading now :) The central reason for adoption of the licence we have is to accomodate the practical limitations of having; 1. A very small - low finance community funding the development. 2. And a very real urgency in terms of time frames. In other words, we saw that to get the project started, we were going to need to rely on a small number of people who were going to need to pitch in funds significant enough that they would need repayment. Also to get the project to the critical functionality to attract developers, we would need to be very driven and focused for the initial stages of devleopment. Not quite the "start and they will come approach" we had seen in other community projects. From a forward looking perspective, the stakeholders felt that given the current expenditure on software, that the subscription figures we were talking about were "fair" enough and would ensure further development (if the OpenVPMS committee saw fit) beyond the original releases. As for OSI certification, we did include their guidelines heavily in our license structure but as you correctly allude to, with current resources being what they are (time being the most limited at present) this will be something to consider when our user community is strongly established. The feedback our clinic is getting from the independent Java developers we have had discussions with, is that this is their primary criteria for getting more involved. Looking forward to your input, Matt Costa Boronia Vet Clinic

Re: Feedback from the Melbourne Seminar

Hi Pat and Matt, Being a somewhat less technical soul than you guys I see the open source issue as being more a statement of intent than anything else. The fact will remain that whether we satisfy all requirements for OSI certification or not, the code will in fact always remain available to developers who want to become involved in the evolution of our software for the betterment of the profession as a whole. I do believe that the cost of development so far has to be covered by subscription income and that there will always be future development that will be better achieved by financing by the OpenVPMS organisation (e.g. addressing stability issues, debugging and basic functionality). The fact that our subscription model will only be used to fund direct costs (and not profit margins or even development for markets other than our own) will ensure that they always will be significantly cheaper than the proprietary software model. Our prediction that as the user base grows that subscriptions will actually fall is testament to our commitment for covering costs only. I would be interested to see if any of the integrator/implementer community out there could give us an their estimate of an A-B comparison of the total cost of ownership between a windows-based proprietary software package and OpenVPMS running on a mainly open source base. The delivery of software support via the web forums and on an "as needed" basis also promises to reduce the cost of this service significantly (by some $1,000's per year in our multi person practice). I look forward to hearing the community's thoughts on the whole open source and funding issue. Peter G
Syndicate content