You're right. I am not a member of the Vista open source community. In fact, much of what I know about it I read on this site. I am sorry to even tried comment from my position of woeful ignorance.
Apparently I misunderstood Gunnar, the author of this article. He seemed to indicate that open healthcare is still an ongoing process, with the new CA project a good next step. In my previous comment I was looking toward Medsphere to take a leadership role in that project to insure it was a success, because I have my doubts about Medsphere's motives.
See, I can't seem to let go of what happened to the Shreeves. From my viewpoint, it seems that they started an open source company, open sourced some code, and were promptly sued for it (read <a href="http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/interview_with_fred_trotter_the_medsphere_saga">Fred Trotter's interview about it).
The founders. Were sued. For publishing open source code.
I have a copy of the lawsuit, which attempted to pursue the Shreeves under RICO (Superior Court of California, Orange County, Case 06CC07475). The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act enables a court to pretty much take everything from a defendant if found guilty. So if I were in the same position as the Shreeves, I would have settled as well.
Settled does not mean "fairly resolved". You make it sound like their parting was amiable. To me it is a completely different sound. It is a story I think about whenever I think about taking external investment for my own company.
To you, this is water under the bridge. Ignore the man behind the current. Forgive and forget. Everything is different now.
To me it is a cautionary tale for anyone who would chose to follow the open source way.
Authored Comments
I think Chris DiBona's influence at Google is underestimated.
You're right. I am not a member of the Vista open source community. In fact, much of what I know about it I read on this site. I am sorry to even tried comment from my position of woeful ignorance.
Apparently I misunderstood Gunnar, the author of this article. He seemed to indicate that open healthcare is still an ongoing process, with the new CA project a good next step. In my previous comment I was looking toward Medsphere to take a leadership role in that project to insure it was a success, because I have my doubts about Medsphere's motives.
See, I can't seem to let go of what happened to the Shreeves. From my viewpoint, it seems that they started an open source company, open sourced some code, and were promptly sued for it (read <a href="http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/interview_with_fred_trotter_the_medsphere_saga">Fred Trotter's interview about it).
The founders. Were sued. For publishing open source code.
I have a copy of the lawsuit, which attempted to pursue the Shreeves under RICO (Superior Court of California, Orange County, Case 06CC07475). The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act enables a court to pretty much take everything from a defendant if found guilty. So if I were in the same position as the Shreeves, I would have settled as well.
Settled does not mean "fairly resolved". You make it sound like their parting was amiable. To me it is a completely different sound. It is a story I think about whenever I think about taking external investment for my own company.
To you, this is water under the bridge. Ignore the man behind the current. Forgive and forget. Everything is different now.
To me it is a cautionary tale for anyone who would chose to follow the open source way.