Your issue seems to be two pronged. (1) you feel Medsphere, the corporation, was wrong for its actions against the founders. A dispute that was settled before you wrote your blog entry. (2) OpenVista, the open source project doesn't constitute a true open source effort (in your past post, you say "It is the prime example of a company using the term “open source” to market proprietary software.").
Again, what happened in mid-2006 is long ago settled by the parties involved. The terms are not known except between the two parties. Steve Shreeve (Scott was not a board member) interviewed the current CEO, publicly endorsed the choice, then settled the lawsuit -- all before the post you linked to... I won't defend either parties actions as it has very little to do with day-to-day management of the company (where I work).
My real frustration is with your opinion of the open source projects. To my knowledge you've never participated in this community, nor have any knowledge of the projects. I can't imagine what you take issue with in regards to the projects or how you can confidently say it's all just marketing.
In regards to Gunnar's comment -- Something that's readily apparent to those who have been involved with open source VistA is that the VA doesn't accept contributions to their software. They never have. Further, they don't even release all their software (let alone design documents, specs, documentation, etc.). I've personally spent 8+ years lobbying them to do so -- many, many others have been saying the same thing.
The recent announcement is the culmination of the community's efforts in pushing for a true open source VistA and the current VA leadership laying the foundation for such a project. In other words, Gunnar's comment is accurate, but not because the community isn't trying to contribute back, it's quite the opposite -- the VA will not accept anything back.
You ask us to "prove you wrong" -- if you looked, I think you'd see that's already been done. If you asked others in the community (WorldVistA, DSS, Hardhats, etc.) I suspect you would hear that many do appreciate the projects we sponsor and knowledge we share (just as we appreciate their efforts and knowledge).
You mention the CA project -- yes, of course we're anxious for the project to kickoff (the RFP hasn't been officially released yet, so we're a ways off). It is a matter of public record that we've participated in a CMU study of the existing community, the IAC report recommending open source as a model, as well as private and public meetings with the VA leadership -- all with this goal in mind.
I do hope you consider my perspective. The frustration is because a group of people's good efforts is being called "marketing" and not open source by someone who doesn't appear to have much knowledge of the projects or even participate in the community.
Authored Comments
Tarus-
Your issue seems to be two pronged. (1) you feel Medsphere, the corporation, was wrong for its actions against the founders. A dispute that was settled before you wrote your blog entry. (2) OpenVista, the open source project doesn't constitute a true open source effort (in your past post, you say "It is the prime example of a company using the term “open source” to market proprietary software.").
Again, what happened in mid-2006 is long ago settled by the parties involved. The terms are not known except between the two parties. Steve Shreeve (Scott was not a board member) interviewed the current CEO, publicly endorsed the choice, then settled the lawsuit -- all before the post you linked to... I won't defend either parties actions as it has very little to do with day-to-day management of the company (where I work).
My real frustration is with your opinion of the open source projects. To my knowledge you've never participated in this community, nor have any knowledge of the projects. I can't imagine what you take issue with in regards to the projects or how you can confidently say it's all just marketing.
In regards to Gunnar's comment -- Something that's readily apparent to those who have been involved with open source VistA is that the VA doesn't accept contributions to their software. They never have. Further, they don't even release all their software (let alone design documents, specs, documentation, etc.). I've personally spent 8+ years lobbying them to do so -- many, many others have been saying the same thing.
The recent announcement is the culmination of the community's efforts in pushing for a true open source VistA and the current VA leadership laying the foundation for such a project. In other words, Gunnar's comment is accurate, but not because the community isn't trying to contribute back, it's quite the opposite -- the VA will not accept anything back.
You ask us to "prove you wrong" -- if you looked, I think you'd see that's already been done. If you asked others in the community (WorldVistA, DSS, Hardhats, etc.) I suspect you would hear that many do appreciate the projects we sponsor and knowledge we share (just as we appreciate their efforts and knowledge).
You mention the CA project -- yes, of course we're anxious for the project to kickoff (the RFP hasn't been officially released yet, so we're a ways off). It is a matter of public record that we've participated in a CMU study of the existing community, the IAC report recommending open source as a model, as well as private and public meetings with the VA leadership -- all with this goal in mind.
I do hope you consider my perspective. The frustration is because a group of people's good efforts is being called "marketing" and not open source by someone who doesn't appear to have much knowledge of the projects or even participate in the community.