We hope you'll join us for our 4/23 webinar on using data tables to apply reference ranges and AE codes in OC4. For more information and to register, visit https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2882170018956684555

clincapture looks familiar

«1

Comments

  • nsophinosnsophinos Posts: 62
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.
    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica
    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • rwattsrwatts Posts: 102
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170
    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.
    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica
    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • ccollinsccollins Posts: 378 admin
    Hi all,
    Personally, I get excited each time I hear of a new distribution based on OpenClinica. The main reason the OpenClinica project was started was because EDC and Clinical Data Management systems has been reinvented from scratch so many times.
    But a distribution is different from a fork, which creates very little value - see http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/forks-vs-distributions-drupal-example.html for the difference.
    Sebastian, as you said, forking a code base is possible under the terms of the open source license, whether or not it creates much value. At this point, unfortunately, Clinovo hasn't even been able to adhere to the benign requirements of the LGPL license (maintain copyright notice of the original authors). We are in touch with them about bringing them back into compliance, but the apparent lack of regard for these simple requirements makes me question their motives.
    I'm still confused about what we missed that led to Clinovo's decision to fork - it wasn't due to lack of direct dialogue with them or good faith on our part - but hope that they'll come into compliance with the license and in time we'll cure the divide and they'll be able to provide real value to users of OpenClinica.
    I feel strongly there's a great collective benefit to using and advancing the usefulness of a common EDC/CDMS platform, and that the open source model is the best way to do that. We can innovate/differentiate at the edges - so much about EDC is changing quickly nowadays, but why should you first have to reinvent the same basic form design/form completion/data management/auditing capabilities that have been developed a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) times? The vitality of the this community is evidence that many others feel similarly.
    So perhaps, as Rick alluded to, this is a good opportunity to get a discussion going about participation and governance of the OpenClinica project. We need to be set up in a way that aligns people's motivation to adopt the technology while contributing back where appropriate. The right community model and the right culture have to be in place for this to happen in a scalable way. We take this commitment very seriously and have defined a core set of values for OpenClinica LLC team members to aspire to and to guide us - I recently shared them at http://blog.openclinica.com/2013/05/24/the-open-source-way/. But there's much more to do.
    We hope, of course, to encourage all users to participate in the community, share their input and code, and have them experience that doing so is a transparent and responsive process. There will always be some overhead to participation, particularly code contribution - it's needed to meet quality goals, ensure consistency, and adhere to good engineering practices. But we work to reduce the overhead to the bare minimum needed, so participation can be easier and more rewarding. Recently we've been putting in place a new generation of tools to help do so (JIRA for project management, Mercurial for distribution version control, Crucible code review, Jenkins build automation, and Selenium test automation).
    Since this last part is more of a developer topic, I'll post on the developer list about it and try to get a conversation going. And it would be great to talk more about it with those of you who are attending OC13! Perhaps we can get a 'birds of a feather' group together to discuss over lunch.
    Best,
    Cal
    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rick Watts wrote:
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170
    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.
    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica
    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • mdesgroumdesgrou Posts: 6
    Hi Cal –
    Since you are questioning Clinovo’s motive for ClinCapture’s fork I would like to respond personally. I also want to dispel your argument that a fork is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, there are lots of example of forks in open source, Linux being a really good example, and the consensus is that they all contribute to improve the code base.
    Our decision to fork was borne out of a desire to: a) promote a higher level of quality in the code base itself, b) to provide a higher level of transparency, and c) to generate a feature set that was geared towards the needs of a CRO. Here are a few examples of innovations we made in ClinCapture (using OpenClinica 3.1.3 feature set as a base):
    · One Click access – to avoid the general complaint that too many clicks are required before users can enter data
    · Streamlined query management – To reduce complexity, we let the system decide if the note is a failed edit check, reason for change or annotation. The discrepancy state is also automatically managed.
    · Live Reports – We integrated Pentaho reporting and it works on actual data: no extract is required!
    · Randomization – We integrated a randomization service from randomize.net
    · Calendared Events and Dynamic Groups – A feature set to conduct oncology studies
    · Account lockout after an inactive period – To improve system security, along with a host of other security features
    · General GUI cleanup and normalization -- To improve intuitiveness
    · Persistent filters and page positions – When navigating away from a page then coming back, a user ends up at the same place with the same filters
    · Ability to lock data by subject and by site – Speeds up database locking
    · Improved export times by x2 – Speeds up data transfers and dataset extracts
    · True read-only access to CRFs – Users cannot click anywhere inside the CRF
    · Upgraded job scheduler – OpenClinica sometimes forgets to run jobs
    · 100s of bug fixes
    · Etc.
    Our in-house developers are working to actively cut out and refactor bloated code in the code base of OpenClinica, and to try and promote a higher level of quality through the creation of an automated tests library to test new features and prevent regressions. You can see some of the progress of our test trends on line here: https://jenkins.clinovo.com/job/clincapture/.
    We also started our own community to attract contributions from the outside with a completely transparent development agenda. We are committed to working with a single code base, as we do not plan to have an enterprise edition, thus fully adhering to the principles of open source development.
    Unlike OpenClinica, Clinovo is a CRO offering bioinformatics and biostatics services. We are therefore well-suited to exploit our experience in clinical data collection, management and analysis to create features that truly serve the needs of users involved in clinical trials. We released an average of 8 new features or bug fixes every two weeks and we need the freedom to innovate and enhance quality at a pace that OpenClinica is unable to sustain currently.
    I hope this answers our motives behind ClinCapture fork and in the spirit of true open source, Clinovo is looking forward to cooperate with OpenClinica in satisfying the need for a stable, feature rich, open-source based EDC system.
    I invite you to join our community at: http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture/forum
    Best,
    Marc
    Marc Desgrousilliers
    Chief Technology Officer
    [email protected]

    Description: Description: image001
    Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:43 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Hi all,

    Personally, I get excited each time I hear of a new distribution based on OpenClinica. The main reason the OpenClinica project was started was because EDC and Clinical Data Management systems has been reinvented from scratch so many times.

    But a distribution is different from a fork, which creates very little value - see http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/forks-vs-distributions-drupal-example.html for the difference.

    Sebastian, as you said, forking a code base is possible under the terms of the open source license, whether or not it creates much value. At this point, unfortunately, Clinovo hasn't even been able to adhere to the benign requirements of the LGPL license (maintain copyright notice of the original authors). We are in touch with them about bringing them back into compliance, but the apparent lack of regard for these simple requirements makes me question their motives.

    I'm still confused about what we missed that led to Clinovo's decision to fork - it wasn't due to lack of direct dialogue with them or good faith on our part - but hope that they'll come into compliance with the license and in time we'll cure the divide and they'll be able to provide real value to users of OpenClinica.

    I feel strongly there's a great collective benefit to using and advancing the usefulness of a common EDC/CDMS platform, and that the open source model is the best way to do that. We can innovate/differentiate at the edges - so much about EDC is changing quickly nowadays, but why should you first have to reinvent the same basic form design/form completion/data management/auditing capabilities that have been developed a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) times? The vitality of the this community is evidence that many others feel similarly.

    So perhaps, as Rick alluded to, this is a good opportunity to get a discussion going about participation and governance of the OpenClinica project. We need to be set up in a way that aligns people's motivation to adopt the technology while contributing back where appropriate. The right community model and the right culture have to be in place for this to happen in a scalable way. We take this commitment very seriously and have defined a core set of values for OpenClinica LLC team members to aspire to and to guide us - I recently shared them at http://blog.openclinica.com/2013/05/24/the-open-source-way/. But there's much more to do.

    We hope, of course, to encourage all users to participate in the community, share their input and code, and have them experience that doing so is a transparent and responsive process. There will always be some overhead to participation, particularly code contribution - it's needed to meet quality goals, ensure consistency, and adhere to good engineering practices. But we work to reduce the overhead to the bare minimum needed, so participation can be easier and more rewarding. Recently we've been putting in place a new generation of tools to help do so (JIRA for project management, Mercurial for distribution version control, Crucible code review, Jenkins build automation, and Selenium test automation).

    Since this last part is more of a developer topic, I'll post on the developer list about it and try to get a conversation going. And it would be great to talk more about it with those of you who are attending OC13! Perhaps we can get a 'birds of a feather' group together to discuss over lunch.

    Best,
    Cal



    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rick Watts wrote:
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170

    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.

    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica

    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • ccollinsccollins Posts: 378 admin
    Marc,
    What do you want me to say? It's your right to fork the code so long as you comply with the LGPL license terms. Go ahead, good luck.
    Users of your fork[1] will be unable to benefit from the improvements and features in future OpenClinica versions. If do attempt to merge future changes in, you'll likely spend most of your time resolving conflicts and testing rather than producing new, useful functionality. This wouldn't be necessary if you pursued a collaborative strategy rather than a fork. You could even still have your own distribution and call it what you like. Wouldn't our time be best spent working together on, for instance, how to build a plug-in architecture so developers can easily customize and develop their own features? That's where OpenClinica is going but undoubtedly can get there faster with more contributors.
    Many members of this list, myself included, have invested the past eight years working to build a trusting, participatory, and transparent open source community around the OpenClinica technology. We've accomplished a lot, learned a lot, and continue to do so. There is an exciting future ahead for OpenClinica, and many intelligent, experienced minds around the world working to make it better and more useful. If you do intend to collaborate[2], I invite you to share your code changes in a way that they can be merged into the OpenClinica code base. If they're good they'll get merged in. Send the patches and a description of the features/fixes they are associated with to [email protected]
    Regards,
    Cal
    [1] - Your message conflates the notions of a fork and a distribution, while in reality they are entirely different. Linux is an operating system kernel. All the major Linux distributions use the same kernel, because forking it would create fragmentation and a compatibility nightmare, and set the progress of Linux back by years. Ubuntu, Red Hat, Suse, etc all rely on and contribute to the same kernel. They are able to differentiate and innovate on top of the common Linux kernel with different packages, UIs, etc and continue benefiting from upstream improvements. When you fork, you go down your own path and benefiting from the upstream changes becomes, for all practical purposes, impossible.
    [2] While you pledge openness, cooperation, and transparency, I have reasons to doubt its sincerity. I hope I'm wrong; I've thought hard about whether to share these reasons publicly - I have no interest in starting a flame war and do not do it to be petty. The best I can do is to state the facts as I see them and let others make up their own minds. To start, I have spoken with your company's president, Ale, many times over the past four years yet I can not identify a single instance where your team made an effort to contribute back to OpenClinica as you say you have tried to do. I was never contacted to say you were thinking of a fork, or that you were having particular technical challenges for which you thought you could contribute fixes. When you launched your fork you copied docs.openclinica.com almost word-for-word and claimed it as your own work, without requesting permission or making any attribution. Open source communities work because of, not despite, intellectual property protections and licenses but this did not seem to be a consideration for you. Most seriously, over the past few weeks, I and several other staff members at OpenClinica LLC been contacted by a large number of community users who have forwarded us copies of direct marketing solicitations you've been making to convince OpenClinica users to migrate to your fork. As best we can tell you seem to have spidered the mailing list archives for names and emails and spammed them all with this solicitation. I hardly believe this has been done in a cooperative spirit, and it violates basic expectations of community behavior. We've allowed you and your team members to continue to participate in these forums, but repeated behavior such as this would get you banned from any reasonable community.
    On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Marc Desgrousilliers wrote:
    Hi Cal –
    Since you are questioning Clinovo’s motive for ClinCapture’s fork I would like to respond personally. I also want to dispel your argument that a fork is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, there are lots of example of forks in open source, Linux being a really good example, and the consensus is that they all contribute to improve the code base.
    Our decision to fork was borne out of a desire to: a) promote a higher level of quality in the code base itself, b) to provide a higher level of transparency, and c) to generate a feature set that was geared towards the needs of a CRO. Here are a few examples of innovations we made in ClinCapture (using OpenClinica 3.1.3 feature set as a base):
    · One Click access – to avoid the general complaint that too many clicks are required before users can enter data
    · Streamlined query management – To reduce complexity, we let the system decide if the note is a failed edit check, reason for change or annotation. The discrepancy state is also automatically managed.
    · Live Reports – We integrated Pentaho reporting and it works on actual data: no extract is required!
    · Randomization – We integrated a randomization service from randomize.net
    · Calendared Events and Dynamic Groups – A feature set to conduct oncology studies
    · Account lockout after an inactive period – To improve system security, along with a host of other security features
    · General GUI cleanup and normalization -- To improve intuitiveness
    · Persistent filters and page positions – When navigating away from a page then coming back, a user ends up at the same place with the same filters
    · Ability to lock data by subject and by site – Speeds up database locking
    · Improved export times by x2 – Speeds up data transfers and dataset extracts
    · True read-only access to CRFs – Users cannot click anywhere inside the CRF
    · Upgraded job scheduler – OpenClinica sometimes forgets to run jobs
    · 100s of bug fixes
    · Etc.
    Our in-house developers are working to actively cut out and refactor bloated code in the code base of OpenClinica, and to try and promote a higher level of quality through the creation of an automated tests library to test new features and prevent regressions. You can see some of the progress of our test trends on line here: https://jenkins.clinovo.com/job/clincapture/.
    We also started our own community to attract contributions from the outside with a completely transparent development agenda. We are committed to working with a single code base, as we do not plan to have an enterprise edition, thus fully adhering to the principles of open source development.
    Unlike OpenClinica, Clinovo is a CRO offering bioinformatics and biostatics services. We are therefore well-suited to exploit our experience in clinical data collection, management and analysis to create features that truly serve the needs of users involved in clinical trials. We released an average of 8 new features or bug fixes every two weeks and we need the freedom to innovate and enhance quality at a pace that OpenClinica is unable to sustain currently.
    I hope this answers our motives behind ClinCapture fork and in the spirit of true open source, Clinovo is looking forward to cooperate with OpenClinica in satisfying the need for a stable, feature rich, open-source based EDC system.
    I invite you to join our community at: http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture/forum
    Best,
    Marc
    Marc Desgrousilliers
    Chief Technology Officer
    [email protected]

    Description: Description: image001
    Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:43 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Hi all,

    Personally, I get excited each time I hear of a new distribution based on OpenClinica. The main reason the OpenClinica project was started was because EDC and Clinical Data Management systems has been reinvented from scratch so many times.

    But a distribution is different from a fork, which creates very little value - see http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/forks-vs-distributions-drupal-example.html for the difference.

    Sebastian, as you said, forking a code base is possible under the terms of the open source license, whether or not it creates much value. At this point, unfortunately, Clinovo hasn't even been able to adhere to the benign requirements of the LGPL license (maintain copyright notice of the original authors). We are in touch with them about bringing them back into compliance, but the apparent lack of regard for these simple requirements makes me question their motives.

    I'm still confused about what we missed that led to Clinovo's decision to fork - it wasn't due to lack of direct dialogue with them or good faith on our part - but hope that they'll come into compliance with the license and in time we'll cure the divide and they'll be able to provide real value to users of OpenClinica.

    I feel strongly there's a great collective benefit to using and advancing the usefulness of a common EDC/CDMS platform, and that the open source model is the best way to do that. We can innovate/differentiate at the edges - so much about EDC is changing quickly nowadays, but why should you first have to reinvent the same basic form design/form completion/data management/auditing capabilities that have been developed a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) times? The vitality of the this community is evidence that many others feel similarly.

    So perhaps, as Rick alluded to, this is a good opportunity to get a discussion going about participation and governance of the OpenClinica project. We need to be set up in a way that aligns people's motivation to adopt the technology while contributing back where appropriate. The right community model and the right culture have to be in place for this to happen in a scalable way. We take this commitment very seriously and have defined a core set of values for OpenClinica LLC team members to aspire to and to guide us - I recently shared them at http://blog.openclinica.com/2013/05/24/the-open-source-way/. But there's much more to do.

    We hope, of course, to encourage all users to participate in the community, share their input and code, and have them experience that doing so is a transparent and responsive process. There will always be some overhead to participation, particularly code contribution - it's needed to meet quality goals, ensure consistency, and adhere to good engineering practices. But we work to reduce the overhead to the bare minimum needed, so participation can be easier and more rewarding. Recently we've been putting in place a new generation of tools to help do so (JIRA for project management, Mercurial for distribution version control, Crucible code review, Jenkins build automation, and Selenium test automation).

    Since this last part is more of a developer topic, I'll post on the developer list about it and try to get a conversation going. And it would be great to talk more about it with those of you who are attending OC13! Perhaps we can get a 'birds of a feather' group together to discuss over lunch.

    Best,
    Cal



    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rick Watts wrote:
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170

    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.

    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica

    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • LizRLizR Posts: 60
    Dear all:
    When I first saw some of Clinovo's work, I was impressed with how tidy a number of things looked and then I asked the question, "What happens to this stuff when I need to upgrade to the next OpenClinica?" The person manning the booth answered, "Well, it would have to be redone." That seemed very shortsighted to me, it wasn't in the best interests of the consumers to customize a product and be unable to grow it. The same concern I had two years ago applies broadly to this new Clinovo product.
    It is, absolutely, a right to fork so long as the license terms are followed. I don't think anyone here would debate that. This is one of the things that can make open source work very vital. A fork, however, can also be very divisive within a community. If developers have come to an absolute impasse where the community can not grow together, there is a reason to fork. Otherwise, a fork detracts from both the original project and its child forks, as community resources become split between the two.
    Of the improvements listed in Marc's email, I see no reason why plug ins or optional add on packages could not provide those functionalities, for the most part. I note that you also say that this was aimed towards making OpenClinica acceptable for CRO use, but there exists at least one CRO currently using OpenClinica and I am in a Biotech developing oncology drugs in Phase I through Phase IIb with plans to take us into Phase III with OpenClinica. In addition to my years in pharma and biotech, I was also in CROs for a while, and I fail to see how having all of this functionality right now in a separate product is an advantage over growing with OpenClinica as it is now, particularly as I don't see how Clinovo could integrate all of these functions with all the new functions coming out in OpenClinica, particularly given the upcoming overhaul of so much of the underlying OpenClinica code.
    As far as features go, in fact, I wouldn't call reporting directly out of my live data a good practice at all, under any circumstances. That's why most of us use views in other systems and datamarts or other extracts in OpenClinica. Some of these other features seem nice, but they're hardly a justification for a fork.
    I did look at the link showing test trends, but where is Clinovo's developer road map? Where is your documentation for users?
    Lastly, although I've tried to give Clinovo the benefit of the doubt, I was deeply disappointed in the marketing tactics Clinovo has chosen to use. Others of my colleagues have received phone calls and I received this email:
    Hello Liz,
    I left you a voicemail last week as I was looking to speak with you about how OpenClinica is working for you and introduce ClinCapture, the most advanced open-source EDC platform on the market.
    You may have received some information from my colleagues and I wanted to follow up with you in this regard. How is OpenClinica working for you? Are there features you would like to see or pain points that need to be addressed?
    I would be happy to have a time to speak with you and learn more about your environment. When might you be available this week for a call? Let me know the time that works best for you and I will call you then.
    Thank you Liz, I look forward to hearing from you.
    Joshua
    If you aren't from OpenClinica and you aren't a fellow user and/or developer of OpenClinica, then it's not your business what I think needs to be addressed with OpenClinica. You're not trying to contribute to OpenClinica, you're trying to poach me as a customer. If I have complaints about OpenClinica, I'll take them to OpenClinica. This letter doesn't make clear that you are from a competing company. It's underhanded. It's sleazy.
    When I chose to use OpenClinica over the other available products, I looked into Rave, Oracle Clinical, Octagon's products, and a host of others. What made me choose OpenClinica was the right-thinking nature of the open source project, the transparency of the development, the responsiveness of the people, the blunt honesty of the team members I met.
    I'm going to do business with people who share my values. If I want things added to OpenClinica, I'll ask. If they don't have time, it's an opensource community. I'll write whatever I want myself and send it back and maybe it can make the next release. That's how it's supposed to work.
    This fork isn't for the betterment of the product or the well being of the community. It's a money grab. I can tell that from the overt poaching of clientele. These behaviors demonstrate to me that the people of Clinovo are not people with whom I would choose to do business.
    Liz
    Liz Robertson
    Director of Data Management and IT
    TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    [email protected]
    office: 858.550.0780 ext. 237
    cell: 760.481.5527
    Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:16 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar
    Marc,
    What do you want me to say? It's your right to fork the code so long as you comply with the LGPL license terms. Go ahead, good luck.
    Users of your fork[1] will be unable to benefit from the improvements and features in future OpenClinica versions. If do attempt to merge future changes in, you'll likely spend most of your time resolving conflicts and testing rather than producing new, useful functionality. This wouldn't be necessary if you pursued a collaborative strategy rather than a fork. You could even still have your own distribution and call it what you like. Wouldn't our time be best spent working together on, for instance, how to build a plug-in architecture so developers can easily customize and develop their own features? That's where OpenClinica is going but undoubtedly can get there faster with more contributors.
    Many members of this list, myself included, have invested the past eight years working to build a trusting, participatory, and transparent open source community around the OpenClinica technology. We've accomplished a lot, learned a lot, and continue to do so. There is an exciting future ahead for OpenClinica, and many intelligent, experienced minds around the world working to make it better and more useful. If you do intend to collaborate[2], I invite you to share your code changes in a way that they can be merged into the OpenClinica code base. If they're good they'll get merged in. Send the patches and a description of the features/fixes they are associated with to [email protected]
    Regards,
    Cal
    [1] - Your message conflates the notions of a fork and a distribution, while in reality they are entirely different. Linux is an operating system kernel. All the major Linux distributions use the same kernel, because forking it would create fragmentation and a compatibility nightmare, and set the progress of Linux back by years. Ubuntu, Red Hat, Suse, etc all rely on and contribute to the same kernel. They are able to differentiate and innovate on top of the common Linux kernel with different packages, UIs, etc and continue benefiting from upstream improvements. When you fork, you go down your own path and benefiting from the upstream changes becomes, for all practical purposes, impossible.
    [2] While you pledge openness, cooperation, and transparency, I have reasons to doubt its sincerity. I hope I'm wrong; I've thought hard about whether to share these reasons publicly - I have no interest in starting a flame war and do not do it to be petty. The best I can do is to state the facts as I see them and let others make up their own minds. To start, I have spoken with your company's president, Ale, many times over the past four years yet I can not identify a single instance where your team made an effort to contribute back to OpenClinica as you say you have tried to do. I was never contacted to say you were thinking of a fork, or that you were having particular technical challenges for which you thought you could contribute fixes. When you launched your fork you copied docs.openclinica.com almost word-for-word and claimed it as your own work, without requesting permission or making any attribution. Open source communities work because of, not despite, intellectual property protections and licenses but this did not seem to be a consideration for you. Most seriously, over the past few weeks, I and several other staff members at OpenClinica LLC been contacted by a large number of community users who have forwarded us copies of direct marketing solicitations you've been making to convince OpenClinica users to migrate to your fork. As best we can tell you seem to have spidered the mailing list archives for names and emails and spammed them all with this solicitation. I hardly believe this has been done in a cooperative spirit, and it violates basic expectations of community behavior. We've allowed you and your team members to continue to participate in these forums, but repeated behavior such as this would get you banned from any reasonable community.
    On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Marc Desgrousilliers wrote:
    Hi Cal –
    Since you are questioning Clinovo’s motive for ClinCapture’s fork I would like to respond personally. I also want to dispel your argument that a fork is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, there are lots of example of forks in open source, Linux being a really good example, and the consensus is that they all contribute to improve the code base.
    Our decision to fork was borne out of a desire to: a) promote a higher level of quality in the code base itself, b) to provide a higher level of transparency, and c) to generate a feature set that was geared towards the needs of a CRO. Here are a few examples of innovations we made in ClinCapture (using OpenClinica 3.1.3 feature set as a base):
    · One Click access – to avoid the general complaint that too many clicks are required before users can enter data
    · Streamlined query management – To reduce complexity, we let the system decide if the note is a failed edit check, reason for change or annotation. The discrepancy state is also automatically managed.
    · Live Reports – We integrated Pentaho reporting and it works on actual data: no extract is required!
    · Randomization – We integrated a randomization service from randomize.net
    · Calendared Events and Dynamic Groups – A feature set to conduct oncology studies
    · Account lockout after an inactive period – To improve system security, along with a host of other security features
    · General GUI cleanup and normalization -- To improve intuitiveness
    · Persistent filters and page positions – When navigating away from a page then coming back, a user ends up at the same place with the same filters
    · Ability to lock data by subject and by site – Speeds up database locking
    · Improved export times by x2 – Speeds up data transfers and dataset extracts
    · True read-only access to CRFs – Users cannot click anywhere inside the CRF
    · Upgraded job scheduler – OpenClinica sometimes forgets to run jobs
    · 100s of bug fixes
    · Etc.
    Our in-house developers are working to actively cut out and refactor bloated code in the code base of OpenClinica, and to try and promote a higher level of quality through the creation of an automated tests library to test new features and prevent regressions. You can see some of the progress of our test trends on line here: https://jenkins.clinovo.com/job/clincapture/.
    We also started our own community to attract contributions from the outside with a completely transparent development agenda. We are committed to working with a single code base, as we do not plan to have an enterprise edition, thus fully adhering to the principles of open source development.
    Unlike OpenClinica, Clinovo is a CRO offering bioinformatics and biostatics services. We are therefore well-suited to exploit our experience in clinical data collection, management and analysis to create features that truly serve the needs of users involved in clinical trials. We released an average of 8 new features or bug fixes every two weeks and we need the freedom to innovate and enhance quality at a pace that OpenClinica is unable to sustain currently.
    I hope this answers our motives behind ClinCapture fork and in the spirit of true open source, Clinovo is looking forward to cooperate with OpenClinica in satisfying the need for a stable, feature rich, open-source based EDC system.
    I invite you to join our community at: http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture/forum
    Best,
    Marc
    Marc Desgrousilliers
    Chief Technology Officer
    [email protected]

    Description: Description: image001
    Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:43 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Hi all,

    Personally, I get excited each time I hear of a new distribution based on OpenClinica. The main reason the OpenClinica project was started was because EDC and Clinical Data Management systems has been reinvented from scratch so many times.

    But a distribution is different from a fork, which creates very little value - see http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/forks-vs-distributions-drupal-example.html for the difference.

    Sebastian, as you said, forking a code base is possible under the terms of the open source license, whether or not it creates much value. At this point, unfortunately, Clinovo hasn't even been able to adhere to the benign requirements of the LGPL license (maintain copyright notice of the original authors). We are in touch with them about bringing them back into compliance, but the apparent lack of regard for these simple requirements makes me question their motives.

    I'm still confused about what we missed that led to Clinovo's decision to fork - it wasn't due to lack of direct dialogue with them or good faith on our part - but hope that they'll come into compliance with the license and in time we'll cure the divide and they'll be able to provide real value to users of OpenClinica.

    I feel strongly there's a great collective benefit to using and advancing the usefulness of a common EDC/CDMS platform, and that the open source model is the best way to do that. We can innovate/differentiate at the edges - so much about EDC is changing quickly nowadays, but why should you first have to reinvent the same basic form design/form completion/data management/auditing capabilities that have been developed a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) times? The vitality of the this community is evidence that many others feel similarly.

    So perhaps, as Rick alluded to, this is a good opportunity to get a discussion going about participation and governance of the OpenClinica project. We need to be set up in a way that aligns people's motivation to adopt the technology while contributing back where appropriate. The right community model and the right culture have to be in place for this to happen in a scalable way. We take this commitment very seriously and have defined a core set of values for OpenClinica LLC team members to aspire to and to guide us - I recently shared them at http://blog.openclinica.com/2013/05/24/the-open-source-way/. But there's much more to do.

    We hope, of course, to encourage all users to participate in the community, share their input and code, and have them experience that doing so is a transparent and responsive process. There will always be some overhead to participation, particularly code contribution - it's needed to meet quality goals, ensure consistency, and adhere to good engineering practices. But we work to reduce the overhead to the bare minimum needed, so participation can be easier and more rewarding. Recently we've been putting in place a new generation of tools to help do so (JIRA for project management, Mercurial for distribution version control, Crucible code review, Jenkins build automation, and Selenium test automation).

    Since this last part is more of a developer topic, I'll post on the developer list about it and try to get a conversation going. And it would be great to talk more about it with those of you who are attending OC13! Perhaps we can get a 'birds of a feather' group together to discuss over lunch.

    Best,
    Cal



    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rick Watts wrote:
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170

    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.

    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica

    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • mdesgroumdesgrou Posts: 6
    Cal,

    Being respectful that this is the OpenClinica community Forum, I will respond to the points your raised on our own community forum.

    Best,

    Marc
    Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:16 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Marc,

    What do you want me to say? It's your right to fork the code so long as you comply with the LGPL license terms. Go ahead, good luck.

    Users of your fork[1] will be unable to benefit from the improvements and features in future OpenClinica versions. If do attempt to merge future changes in, you'll likely spend most of your time resolving conflicts and testing rather than producing new, useful functionality. This wouldn't be necessary if you pursued a collaborative strategy rather than a fork. You could even still have your own distribution and call it what you like. Wouldn't our time be best spent working together on, for instance, how to build a plug-in architecture so developers can easily customize and develop their own features? That's where OpenClinica is going but undoubtedly can get there faster with more contributors.

    Many members of this list, myself included, have invested the past eight years working to build a trusting, participatory, and transparent open source community around the OpenClinica technology. We've accomplished a lot, learned a lot, and continue to do so. There is an exciting future ahead for OpenClinica, and many intelligent, experienced minds around the world working to make it better and more useful. If you do intend to collaborate[2], I invite you to share your code changes in a way that they can be merged into the OpenClinica code base. If they're good they'll get merged in. Send the patches and a description of the features/fixes they are associated with to [email protected]

    Regards,
    Cal


    [1] - Your message conflates the notions of a fork and a distribution, while in reality they are entirely different. Linux is an operating system kernel. All the major Linux distributions use the same kernel, because forking it would create fragmentation and a compatibility nightmare, and set the progress of Linux back by years. Ubuntu, Red Hat, Suse, etc all rely on and contribute to the same kernel. They are able to differentiate and innovate on top of the common Linux kernel with different packages, UIs, etc and continue benefiting from upstream improvements. When you fork, you go down your own path and benefiting from the upstream changes becomes, for all practical purposes, impossible.

    [2] While you pledge openness, cooperation, and transparency, I have reasons to doubt its sincerity. I hope I'm wrong; I've thought hard about whether to share these reasons publicly - I have no interest in starting a flame war and do not do it to be petty. The best I can do is to state the facts as I see them and let others make up their own minds. To start, I have spoken with your company's president, Ale, many times over the past four years yet I can not identify a single instance where your team made an effort to contribute back to OpenClinica as you say you have tried to do. I was never contacted to say you were thinking of a fork, or that you were having particular technical challenges for which you thought you could contribute fixes. When you launched your fork you copied docs.openclinica.com almost word-for-word and claimed it as your own work, without requesting permission or making any attribution. Open source communities work because of, not despite, intellectual property protections and licenses but this did not seem to be a consideration for you. Most seriously, over the past few weeks, I and several other staff members at OpenClinica LLC been contacted by a large number of community users who have forwarded us copies of direct marketing solicitations you've been making to convince OpenClinica users to migrate to your fork. As best we can tell you seem to have spidered the mailing list archives for names and emails and spammed them all with this solicitation. I hardly believe this has been done in a cooperative spirit, and it violates basic expectations of community behavior. We've allowed you and your team members to continue to participate in these forums, but repeated behavior such as this would get you banned from any reasonable community.










    On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Marc Desgrousilliers wrote:
    Hi Cal –
    Since you are questioning Clinovo’s motive for ClinCapture’s fork I would like to respond personally. I also want to dispel your argument that a fork is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, there are lots of example of forks in open source, Linux being a really good example, and the consensus is that they all contribute to improve the code base.
    Our decision to fork was borne out of a desire to: a) promote a higher level of quality in the code base itself, b) to provide a higher level of transparency, and c) to generate a feature set that was geared towards the needs of a CRO. Here are a few examples of innovations we made in ClinCapture (using OpenClinica 3.1.3 feature set as a base):
    · One Click access – to avoid the general complaint that too many clicks are required before users can enter data
    · Streamlined query management – To reduce complexity, we let the system decide if the note is a failed edit check, reason for change or annotation. The discrepancy state is also automatically managed.
    · Live Reports – We integrated Pentaho reporting and it works on actual data: no extract is required!
    · Randomization – We integrated a randomization service from randomize.net
    · Calendared Events and Dynamic Groups – A feature set to conduct oncology studies
    · Account lockout after an inactive period – To improve system security, along with a host of other security features
    · General GUI cleanup and normalization -- To improve intuitiveness
    · Persistent filters and page positions – When navigating away from a page then coming back, a user ends up at the same place with the same filters
    · Ability to lock data by subject and by site – Speeds up database locking
    · Improved export times by x2 – Speeds up data transfers and dataset extracts
    · True read-only access to CRFs – Users cannot click anywhere inside the CRF
    · Upgraded job scheduler – OpenClinica sometimes forgets to run jobs
    · 100s of bug fixes
    · Etc.
    Our in-house developers are working to actively cut out and refactor bloated code in the code base of OpenClinica, and to try and promote a higher level of quality through the creation of an automated tests library to test new features and prevent regressions. You can see some of the progress of our test trends on line here: https://jenkins.clinovo.com/job/clincapture/.
    We also started our own community to attract contributions from the outside with a completely transparent development agenda. We are committed to working with a single code base, as we do not plan to have an enterprise edition, thus fully adhering to the principles of open source development.
    Unlike OpenClinica, Clinovo is a CRO offering bioinformatics and biostatics services. We are therefore well-suited to exploit our experience in clinical data collection, management and analysis to create features that truly serve the needs of users involved in clinical trials. We released an average of 8 new features or bug fixes every two weeks and we need the freedom to innovate and enhance quality at a pace that OpenClinica is unable to sustain currently.
    I hope this answers our motives behind ClinCapture fork and in the spirit of true open source, Clinovo is looking forward to cooperate with OpenClinica in satisfying the need for a stable, feature rich, open-source based EDC system.
    I invite you to join our community at: http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture/forum
    Best,
    Marc
    Marc Desgrousilliers
    Chief Technology Officer
    [email protected]

    Description: Description: image001
    Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:43 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Hi all,

    Personally, I get excited each time I hear of a new distribution based on OpenClinica. The main reason the OpenClinica project was started was because EDC and Clinical Data Management systems has been reinvented from scratch so many times.

    But a distribution is different from a fork, which creates very little value - see http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/forks-vs-distributions-drupal-example.html for the difference.

    Sebastian, as you said, forking a code base is possible under the terms of the open source license, whether or not it creates much value. At this point, unfortunately, Clinovo hasn't even been able to adhere to the benign requirements of the LGPL license (maintain copyright notice of the original authors). We are in touch with them about bringing them back into compliance, but the apparent lack of regard for these simple requirements makes me question their motives.

    I'm still confused about what we missed that led to Clinovo's decision to fork - it wasn't due to lack of direct dialogue with them or good faith on our part - but hope that they'll come into compliance with the license and in time we'll cure the divide and they'll be able to provide real value to users of OpenClinica.

    I feel strongly there's a great collective benefit to using and advancing the usefulness of a common EDC/CDMS platform, and that the open source model is the best way to do that. We can innovate/differentiate at the edges - so much about EDC is changing quickly nowadays, but why should you first have to reinvent the same basic form design/form completion/data management/auditing capabilities that have been developed a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) times? The vitality of the this community is evidence that many others feel similarly.

    So perhaps, as Rick alluded to, this is a good opportunity to get a discussion going about participation and governance of the OpenClinica project. We need to be set up in a way that aligns people's motivation to adopt the technology while contributing back where appropriate. The right community model and the right culture have to be in place for this to happen in a scalable way. We take this commitment very seriously and have defined a core set of values for OpenClinica LLC team members to aspire to and to guide us - I recently shared them at http://blog.openclinica.com/2013/05/24/the-open-source-way/. But there's much more to do.

    We hope, of course, to encourage all users to participate in the community, share their input and code, and have them experience that doing so is a transparent and responsive process. There will always be some overhead to participation, particularly code contribution - it's needed to meet quality goals, ensure consistency, and adhere to good engineering practices. But we work to reduce the overhead to the bare minimum needed, so participation can be easier and more rewarding. Recently we've been putting in place a new generation of tools to help do so (JIRA for project management, Mercurial for distribution version control, Crucible code review, Jenkins build automation, and Selenium test automation).

    Since this last part is more of a developer topic, I'll post on the developer list about it and try to get a conversation going. And it would be great to talk more about it with those of you who are attending OC13! Perhaps we can get a 'birds of a feather' group together to discuss over lunch.

    Best,
    Cal



    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rick Watts wrote:
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170

    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.

    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica

    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • lindsay.stevenslindsay.stevens Posts: 404 ✭✭✭
    http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/179341/mj-thriller-popcorn-o.gif
    I agree that while Clinovo has a good set of improvements, it doesn't make sense to me to fork into yet another EDC product instead of developing these as plug-ins or optional packages for OpenClinica (which could still be monetised if desired, e.g. Umbraco's paid add-ins. On a related note, being on an LGPL instead of GPL leaves the door open for this, which is probably a bad thing).
    Also there are non-trivial operational costs associated with testing upgrade compatibility with live studies, updating procedures and manuals, (re-)training users, etc; which makes the point about Clinovo releasing frequent incremental updates not particularly attractive, as opposed to less frequent but more significant updates.
    Best regards,
    Lindsay
    On 20 June 2013 10:15, Marc Desgrousilliers wrote:
    Cal,

    Being respectful that this is the OpenClinica community Forum, I will respond to the points your raised on our own community forum.

    Best,

    Marc
    Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:16 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Marc,

    What do you want me to say? It's your right to fork the code so long as you comply with the LGPL license terms. Go ahead, good luck.

    Users of your fork[1] will be unable to benefit from the improvements and features in future OpenClinica versions. If do attempt to merge future changes in, you'll likely spend most of your time resolving conflicts and testing rather than producing new, useful functionality. This wouldn't be necessary if you pursued a collaborative strategy rather than a fork. You could even still have your own distribution and call it what you like. Wouldn't our time be best spent working together on, for instance, how to build a plug-in architecture so developers can easily customize and develop their own features? That's where OpenClinica is going but undoubtedly can get there faster with more contributors.

    Many members of this list, myself included, have invested the past eight years working to build a trusting, participatory, and transparent open source community around the OpenClinica technology. We've accomplished a lot, learned a lot, and continue to do so. There is an exciting future ahead for OpenClinica, and many intelligent, experienced minds around the world working to make it better and more useful. If you do intend to collaborate[2], I invite you to share your code changes in a way that they can be merged into the OpenClinica code base. If they're good they'll get merged in. Send the patches and a description of the features/fixes they are associated with to [email protected]

    Regards,
    Cal


    [1] - Your message conflates the notions of a fork and a distribution, while in reality they are entirely different. Linux is an operating system kernel. All the major Linux distributions use the same kernel, because forking it would create fragmentation and a compatibility nightmare, and set the progress of Linux back by years. Ubuntu, Red Hat, Suse, etc all rely on and contribute to the same kernel. They are able to differentiate and innovate on top of the common Linux kernel with different packages, UIs, etc and continue benefiting from upstream improvements. When you fork, you go down your own path and benefiting from the upstream changes becomes, for all practical purposes, impossible.

    [2] While you pledge openness, cooperation, and transparency, I have reasons to doubt its sincerity. I hope I'm wrong; I've thought hard about whether to share these reasons publicly - I have no interest in starting a flame war and do not do it to be petty. The best I can do is to state the facts as I see them and let others make up their own minds. To start, I have spoken with your company's president, Ale, many times over the past four years yet I can not identify a single instance where your team made an effort to contribute back to OpenClinica as you say you have tried to do. I was never contacted to say you were thinking of a fork, or that you were having particular technical challenges for which you thought you could contribute fixes. When you launched your fork you copied docs.openclinica.com almost word-for-word and claimed it as your own work, without requesting permission or making any attribution. Open source communities work because of, not despite, intellectual property protections and licenses but this did not seem to be a consideration for you. Most seriously, over the past few weeks, I and several other staff members at OpenClinica LLC been contacted by a large number of community users who have forwarded us copies of direct marketing solicitations you've been making to convince OpenClinica users to migrate to your fork. As best we can tell you seem to have spidered the mailing list archives for names and emails and spammed them all with this solicitation. I hardly believe this has been done in a cooperative spirit, and it violates basic expectations of community behavior. We've allowed you and your team members to continue to participate in these forums, but repeated behavior such as this would get you banned from any reasonable community.










    On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Marc Desgrousilliers wrote:
    Hi Cal –
    Since you are questioning Clinovo’s motive for ClinCapture’s fork I would like to respond personally. I also want to dispel your argument that a fork is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, there are lots of example of forks in open source, Linux being a really good example, and the consensus is that they all contribute to improve the code base.
    Our decision to fork was borne out of a desire to: a) promote a higher level of quality in the code base itself, b) to provide a higher level of transparency, and c) to generate a feature set that was geared towards the needs of a CRO. Here are a few examples of innovations we made in ClinCapture (using OpenClinica 3.1.3 feature set as a base):
    · One Click access – to avoid the general complaint that too many clicks are required before users can enter data
    · Streamlined query management – To reduce complexity, we let the system decide if the note is a failed edit check, reason for change or annotation. The discrepancy state is also automatically managed.
    · Live Reports – We integrated Pentaho reporting and it works on actual data: no extract is required!
    · Randomization – We integrated a randomization service from randomize.net
    · Calendared Events and Dynamic Groups – A feature set to conduct oncology studies
    · Account lockout after an inactive period – To improve system security, along with a host of other security features
    · General GUI cleanup and normalization -- To improve intuitiveness
    · Persistent filters and page positions – When navigating away from a page then coming back, a user ends up at the same place with the same filters
    · Ability to lock data by subject and by site – Speeds up database locking
    · Improved export times by x2 – Speeds up data transfers and dataset extracts
    · True read-only access to CRFs – Users cannot click anywhere inside the CRF
    · Upgraded job scheduler – OpenClinica sometimes forgets to run jobs
    · 100s of bug fixes
    · Etc.
    Our in-house developers are working to actively cut out and refactor bloated code in the code base of OpenClinica, and to try and promote a higher level of quality through the creation of an automated tests library to test new features and prevent regressions. You can see some of the progress of our test trends on line here: https://jenkins.clinovo.com/job/clincapture/.
    We also started our own community to attract contributions from the outside with a completely transparent development agenda. We are committed to working with a single code base, as we do not plan to have an enterprise edition, thus fully adhering to the principles of open source development.
    Unlike OpenClinica, Clinovo is a CRO offering bioinformatics and biostatics services. We are therefore well-suited to exploit our experience in clinical data collection, management and analysis to create features that truly serve the needs of users involved in clinical trials. We released an average of 8 new features or bug fixes every two weeks and we need the freedom to innovate and enhance quality at a pace that OpenClinica is unable to sustain currently.
    I hope this answers our motives behind ClinCapture fork and in the spirit of true open source, Clinovo is looking forward to cooperate with OpenClinica in satisfying the need for a stable, feature rich, open-source based EDC system.
    I invite you to join our community at: http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture/forum
    Best,
    Marc
    Marc Desgrousilliers
    Chief Technology Officer
    [email protected]

    Description: Description: image001
    Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 6:43 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    Hi all,

    Personally, I get excited each time I hear of a new distribution based on OpenClinica. The main reason the OpenClinica project was started was because EDC and Clinical Data Management systems has been reinvented from scratch so many times.

    But a distribution is different from a fork, which creates very little value - see http://asay.blogspot.com/2006/10/forks-vs-distributions-drupal-example.html for the difference.

    Sebastian, as you said, forking a code base is possible under the terms of the open source license, whether or not it creates much value. At this point, unfortunately, Clinovo hasn't even been able to adhere to the benign requirements of the LGPL license (maintain copyright notice of the original authors). We are in touch with them about bringing them back into compliance, but the apparent lack of regard for these simple requirements makes me question their motives.

    I'm still confused about what we missed that led to Clinovo's decision to fork - it wasn't due to lack of direct dialogue with them or good faith on our part - but hope that they'll come into compliance with the license and in time we'll cure the divide and they'll be able to provide real value to users of OpenClinica.

    I feel strongly there's a great collective benefit to using and advancing the usefulness of a common EDC/CDMS platform, and that the open source model is the best way to do that. We can innovate/differentiate at the edges - so much about EDC is changing quickly nowadays, but why should you first have to reinvent the same basic form design/form completion/data management/auditing capabilities that have been developed a hundred (or perhaps a thousand) times? The vitality of the this community is evidence that many others feel similarly.

    So perhaps, as Rick alluded to, this is a good opportunity to get a discussion going about participation and governance of the OpenClinica project. We need to be set up in a way that aligns people's motivation to adopt the technology while contributing back where appropriate. The right community model and the right culture have to be in place for this to happen in a scalable way. We take this commitment very seriously and have defined a core set of values for OpenClinica LLC team members to aspire to and to guide us - I recently shared them at http://blog.openclinica.com/2013/05/24/the-open-source-way/. But there's much more to do.

    We hope, of course, to encourage all users to participate in the community, share their input and code, and have them experience that doing so is a transparent and responsive process. There will always be some overhead to participation, particularly code contribution - it's needed to meet quality goals, ensure consistency, and adhere to good engineering practices. But we work to reduce the overhead to the bare minimum needed, so participation can be easier and more rewarding. Recently we've been putting in place a new generation of tools to help do so (JIRA for project management, Mercurial for distribution version control, Crucible code review, Jenkins build automation, and Selenium test automation).

    Since this last part is more of a developer topic, I'll post on the developer list about it and try to get a conversation going. And it would be great to talk more about it with those of you who are attending OC13! Perhaps we can get a 'birds of a feather' group together to discuss over lunch.

    Best,
    Cal



    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rick Watts wrote:
    Should keep everyone on their toes then!
    Rick Watts B.Sc, FICR, CSci
    Team Lead, Clinical Research Informatics
    Women & Children's Health Research Institute
    Tel: (780) 248 1170

    On 29 May 2013 12:01, Nick Sophinos wrote:
    Yes, it is possible and all of that. But with that possibility comes the pressure to deliver a product that adds value beyond the cloned original. And if the original product (see bottom of https://community.openclinica.com/conference/oc13-breakout-3 ) leapfrogs over the cloned version then there is the challenge of keeping up with that as well.

    Nick Sophinos
    Developer
    OpenClinica

    On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
    Hi,

    http://www.clinovo.com/clincapture

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PG7Qm6bPSKg#!

    Guess this is all possible under an open license.
    Sebastian
  • sookeyosookeyo Posts: 75
    hey
    can you guys come out clear and solve these your differences so that you don't leave users and developers with a lot of questions about the two systems?? they are making some of us wonder a lot about the scenarios being portrayed especially when you argue in public like this?!!!
    regards
  • ccollinsccollins Posts: 378 admin
    Hi Seth,
    I agree this causes a lot of confusion, and is distracting especially if you're not heavily involved in OpenClinica development, governance, etc. But on the other hand open dialogue is a cornerstone of successful open source development, and that's why these lists are unmoderated.
    Sometimes limited moderation is called for... and this discussion should really be on the developers list, not the users list. So, if anyone has further thoughts on the topic please post them to [email protected]
    When we have the new community forums ready (see the threads started by Rob Rittberg for more info) there will be better tools to join/monitor only certain categories of discussions, so you can filter out things that aren't relevant to you.
    Best,
    Cal
    On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Seth Okeyo wrote:
    hey
    can you guys come out clear and solve these your differences so that you don't leave users and developers with a lot of questions about the two systems?? they are making some of us wonder a lot about the scenarios being portrayed especially when you argue in public like this?!!!
    regards
This discussion has been closed.