Was hoping to get some input on the wordage we are using in the Copyright notice on the login page.
1. Since this page doesn’t actually contain any Copyright information, would it be ok to change it to ‘Licensing’? (The copyrights are actually stored in the individual scripts)
2. Should we stating GPL3 or higher now with a GPL3 license text document instead of a GPL2 text document since the code was all effectively moved to GPL3 when we added the CCR/CCD code (had a adobe license that required GPL3 to be compatible).
Most scripts indicate both copyright and license, as they should. I agree with the change to “Licensing”, but as an informal statement about the licenses used. Maybe just say, by way of information, that the project includes GPL2+, GPL3 and BSD licensing (are there any others?), and include links to the relevant text.
Hi Rod,
The problem here is that the Adobe licensing for the CCR/CCD stuff has effectively forced all licensing in OpenEMR to GPL3+. I’m afraid that if we mention more then GPL3+, then the scripts that are missing copyright/license information may fall into some sort of licensing no mans land.
How about something like:
Unless otherwise stated, this code has been released under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 or higher (GPL), a copy of which is included here for your convenience.
I would say “is subject to” rather than “has been released under”, as the scripts missing copyright/license are surely all left over from the “old days” when the whole mess was released as GPL2+. Otherwise that seems fine.
It includes the following changes:
-Clarified licensing wordage and changed the license.txt file from GPL2+
license to GPL3+ license
-Added ONC-ATCB certification information
-Reworded the link to this information on the login page
-Per OEMR request, added link to their website in the Websites section
-Added some additional acknowledgments (List of contributors)