LibreHealth EHR License What is the best choice

(Terry Hill) #21

I have the disclaimer as a file in the acknowledgments. There is a concern that the disclaimer in each program will chew up too much real estate.

(Terry Hill) #22

That came from “Combining MPL-Licensed files with an (L)GPL-Licensed Project: Guidelines for Developers”

My Head hurts, Hats off to the guys who work with this daily @lrosen

(Terry Hill) #23

This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at

Copyright © 20xx, MPL Contributor1

The contents of this file may be used under the terms of the GNU General Public License Version XX, as described below:

This file is free software: you may copy, redistribute and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version XX of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This file is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE as stated in the Healthcare Disclaimer on the Acknowlegments, Licensing and Certification page also See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see

@r0bby @lrosen Is this better guys?

(Saptarshi Purkayastha) #24

@teryhill, may be add just the word healthcare disclaimer. We have to point to the HD link somewhere. But it could look like the below:

This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0 with an additional healthcare disclaimer. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this file, You can obtain one at and the healthcare disclaimer can be found at

(Lawrence Rosen) #25

You make this more difficult than it needs to be.:slight_smile:

At the top of your released software package place the following short notice:

Copyright © 2016 Humanitech Inc. Licensed to the public under the MPL-HD license at

Then create a separate NOTICE file to include with your package. This is all described in the LibreHealth Contribution Policy:

Contents of the NOTICE File

The NOTICE file that accompanies every formal distribution of software by a LibreHealth project identifies each third-party component in that software and the open source or Creative Commons license under which that component is available to the public. The following information, if available, will also be included in the NOTICE file:

  • Copyright notices supplied by the licensor(s) of any part of the software. LibreHealth project teams may elect to remove individual copyright notices that detract from the “community” ethos of the project, but individual copyrights will still be protected by a legally-effective and encompassing copyright notice such as “Copyright © 2016 Humanitech Inc.”
  • Patent notices identifying specific patents or patent claims that may read on the software. Contributors and all project team members are expected to disclose any patent claims of which they are aware. In the event that possible patent claims may be confidential, the contributor must disclose enough about them to alert the public about possible future encumbrances.
  • Identification of industry standards implemented by the software.
  • LibreHealth community projects and contributors may also include acknowledgement and attribution to individuals, companies or other organizations for significant portions of the software or its documentation, or who contributed in other ways to the project as a whole.
  • Other important notices that the LibreHealth project team or its contributors want to share with the downstream users of that software.

(Art Eaton) #26

I thought the giant doc block at the top of each and every script file was…totally ridiculous. A specific author or additional copyright, perhaps usage or file/module association notes are fine where needed, but having the first 25 lines of every script hold a bunch of repetitive comments is hardly an OO approach. Include by reference. Move all individual copyrights to the NOTICE file. Get rid of 14 meg of package content. This is as large of a comment block as I have commonly found in a current project: /*

(Terry Hill) #27

Agree with the waste of real estate but can you legally remove the legacy copyright’s

(Art Eaton) #28

You can alter the file. If you are moving the attribution all to one file, and pointing to it, that is altering the file, not removing the attribution.

(Terry Hill) #29

Some one else need to take this . I am confused , befuddled and got a huge headache @tony @aethelwulffe

(Art Eaton) #30

Terry, your header is totally fine for now, and achieves the stated purpose. We can redress this whole matter (and have to) as a project unto itself. Should I have Bubba dive by with hi tranquilizer gun and give you a few hours of rest?:sweat_smile:

(Tony McCormick) #31

I agree, let’s get the release out now.

(Terry Hill) #32

he would just hit a tree remember the google map

(Art Eaton) #33

I’ll just have him wait for you in the outhouse.

(Terry Hill) #34

he might get the neighbor it is a shared unit

(Terry Hill) #35

@lrosen Can or should I make mention of the Mozilla license covering changes to the source as of a date.

Example I have added a new feature to the code it is originally licensed as GNU . Should I add a reference to the Mozilla license for the changes to the code that I did.



(Lawrence Rosen) #36

@teryhill If the original code that you subsequently modified was originally licensed as GPL, then your modified version of that code is also under GPL.

Is this modified code a smaller component of a larger program? If so, the MPL license used by LibreHealth applies to the larger program while the GPL license applies to the component.

(Terry Hill) #37

Can we use tools that are opensource and licensed under the Apache license version 2.0?

(Michael Downey) #38

Can you give a more specific example of the tools in question?

(Terry Hill) #39

iziModal.js Plus all the extra stuff that has to be here to orchestrate a reply

(Michael Downey) #40

This information from (emphasis added) …

The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2.0 to be a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL. The Software Freedom Law Center provides practical advice for developers about including permissively licensed source. Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works.

However, GPLv3 software cannot be included in Apache projects. The licenses are incompatible in one direction only, and it is a result of ASF’s licensing philosophy and the GPLv3 authors’ interpretation of copyright law. This licensing incompatibility applies only when some Apache project software becomes a derivative work of some GPLv3 software, because then the Apache software would have to be distributed under GPLv3.

IANAL but this suggests that there’s no problem including iziModal.js (Apache PL v2) within a GPL product.