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

2»

Comments

  • mdesgroumdesgrou Posts: 6
    Hi Lindsay,

    ClinCapture can be installed on top of an existing OpenClinica database and all the improvements we made are released as part of our community edition that is totally free of charge. BTW, I did not understand the “sleazy money grab” argument made in another thread since we don’t charge for an Enterprise edition and we are not interested in monetizing our value-added features. As a CRO our aim is to sell our Biometrics services using ClinCapture and, since we developed a great platform, we want to provide users a choice in open source EDC. Period. I can assure you that Clinovo doesn’t have the evil motives imputed to us.

    Initially we tried to implement our features as plug-ins but any OpenClinica developer will tell you that the code is messy and does not lend itself to this type of architecture. One area I am interested in collaborating with OpenClinica is a true service oriented architecture where any 3rd party would be free to plug in custom features like graphical reporting, coding, randomization, ePRO, mobile GUIs, etc. For end-users more solutions would be available, multiple solutions would foster a healthy competition and 3rd parties could monetize their innovations while retaining their IP. It would be a win-win all around for the community. Unfortunately, Cal is not open to collaborate with us, so we may have to do this on our own… -- sorry if I am sounding like the little red hen ;-)

    We operate under LGPL which is a great thing because choices always benefit consumers as they improve products and services while reducing costs (again, ClinCapture and its value-add features set is $0). As you know, monopolies have never been deemed a good thing for consumers.

    Our roadmap produces a development release every 2 weeks and a stable & validated release every 4-6 months. You are free to pick the release of your choice depending if you are user or a developer.

    Your point about operational cost is well taken and needs to be evaluated in light of the high quality and innovative features set you are getting for free.

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:24 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    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]
    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
    Really, Marc? I'd be pleased to explain it to you, but I thought you were moving this conversation to your own forums out of respect for OpenClinica. Further, I agree with Cal that if you can't do that, then the place for this is the developers' list.
    Liz Robertson
    Director of Data Management and IT
    TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    [email protected]
    office: 858.550.0780 ext. 237
    cell: 760.481.5527
    Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:11 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar
    Hi Lindsay,

    ClinCapture can be installed on top of an existing OpenClinica database and all the improvements we made are released as part of our community edition that is totally free of charge. BTW, I did not understand the “sleazy money grab” argument made in another thread since we don’t charge for an Enterprise edition and we are not interested in monetizing our value-added features. As a CRO our aim is to sell our Biometrics services using ClinCapture and, since we developed a great platform, we want to provide users a choice in open source EDC. Period. I can assure you that Clinovo doesn’t have the evil motives imputed to us.

    Initially we tried to implement our features as plug-ins but any OpenClinica developer will tell you that the code is messy and does not lend itself to this type of architecture. One area I am interested in collaborating with OpenClinica is a true service oriented architecture where any 3rd party would be free to plug in custom features like graphical reporting, coding, randomization, ePRO, mobile GUIs, etc. For end-users more solutions would be available, multiple solutions would foster a healthy competition and 3rd parties could monetize their innovations while retaining their IP. It would be a win-win all around for the community. Unfortunately, Cal is not open to collaborate with us, so we may have to do this on our own… -- sorry if I am sounding like the little red hen ;-)

    We operate under LGPL which is a great thing because choices always benefit consumers as they improve products and services while reducing costs (again, ClinCapture and its value-add features set is $0). As you know, monopolies have never been deemed a good thing for consumers.

    Our roadmap produces a development release every 2 weeks and a stable & validated release every 4-6 months. You are free to pick the release of your choice depending if you are user or a developer.

    Your point about operational cost is well taken and needs to be evaluated in light of the high quality and innovative features set you are getting for free.

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:24 PM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar

    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]
    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
  • pp.weberpp.weber Posts: 2
    Marc,
    I applaud your intention of being respectful and not posting your answer to Cal to the ClinCapture forum, but I wonder why your lengthy answer to Lindsay still landed in my inbox.
    Your elevator pitch is getting a bit obnoxious and much too long. I'm certain anyone interested is absolutely capable of finding and subscribing to the ClinCapture forum. You succeeded in making absolutely everyone aware that your product exists.
    Could you please post your comments in your own forum? I could of course try to filter out your specific posts but, honestly, I don't think I should have to.
    Cheers, P.
  • mdesgroumdesgrou Posts: 6
    Hi Liz,
    I did not want to have a flaming war with Cal who was overtly attacking us. However I replied to Lindsay because she made some statements about ClinCapture that seemed genuine but needed to be corrected.
    I can understand Cal is threatened by a free competitive product hat is better than his expensive Enterprise Edition but I am puzzled as to why you seem bothered to have choice in open source EDC.
    Cheers,
    Marc
    Sent from my iPhone
    On Jun 20, 2013, at 6:09 PM, "Liz Robertson" wrote:
    > Really, Marc? I'd be pleased to explain it to you, but I thought you were moving this conversation to your own forums out of respect for OpenClinica. Further, I agree with Cal that if you can't do that, then the place for this is the developers' list.
    >
    > Liz Robertson
    > Director of Data Management and IT
    > TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    > [email protected]
    > office: 858.550.0780 ext. 237
    > cell: 760.481.5527
    >
    > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:11 PM
    > To: [email protected]
    > Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar
    >
    > Hi Lindsay,
    >
    >
    >
    > ClinCapture can be installed on top of an existing OpenClinica database and all the improvements we made are released as part of our community edition that is totally free of charge. BTW, I did not understand the “sleazy money grab” argument made in another thread since we don’t charge for an Enterprise edition and we are not interested in monetizing our value-added features. As a CRO our aim is to sell our Biometrics services using ClinCapture and, since we developed a great platform, we want to provide users a choice in open source EDC. Period. I can assure you that Clinovo doesn’t have the evil motives imputed to us.
    >
    >
    >
    > Initially we tried to implement our features as plug-ins but any OpenClinica developer will tell you that the code is messy and does not lend itself to this type of architecture. One area I am interested in collaborating with OpenClinica is a true service oriented architecture where any 3rd party would be free to plug in custom features like graphical reporting, coding, randomization, ePRO, mobile GUIs, etc. For end-users more solutions would be available, multiple solutions would foster a healthy competition and 3rd parties could monetize their innovations while retaining their IP. It would be a win-win all around for the community. Unfortunately, Cal is not open to collaborate with us, so we may have to do this on our own… -- sorry if I am sounding like the little red hen ;-)
    >
    >
    >
    > We operate under LGPL which is a great thing because choices always benefit consumers as they improve products and services while reducing costs (again, ClinCapture and its value-add features set is $0). As you know, monopolies have never been deemed a good thing for consumers.
    >
    >
    >
    > Our roadmap produces a development release every 2 weeks and a stable & validated release every 4-6 months. You are free to pick the release of your choice depending if you are user or a developer.
    >
    >
    >
    > Your point about operational cost is well taken and needs to be evaluated in light of the high quality and innovative features set you are getting for free.
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    >
    >
    > Marc
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:24 PM
    > To: [email protected]
    > Subject: Re: [Users] clincapture looks familiar
    >
    >
    >
    > 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]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • dannyldannyl Posts: 16
    Interesting thread.   All I can say is that competition and openness  is a good thing. 

    May the best Open Source EDC win.  In the meantime - end users are already winning by having alternatives
This discussion has been closed.