Slashdot Mirror
South Australia Refuses To Stop Using An Expired, MS-DOS-Based Health Software (abc.net.au)
jaa101 writes: The Australian state of South Australia is being sued for refusing to stop using CHIRON, an MS-DOS-based software from the '90s that stores patient records. Their license expired in March of 2015, but they claim it would be risky to stop using it. CHIRON's vendor, Working Systems, says SA Health has been the only user of CHIRON since 2008 when they declined to migrate to the successor product MasterCare ePAS.
SA Health has 64 sites across South Australia -- all of which are apparently still using the MS-DOS-based health software from the 1990s.
SA Health has 64 sites across South Australia -- all of which are apparently still using the MS-DOS-based health software from the 1990s.
If I understand correctly, their CHIRON license expired in March of 2015 but Working Systems doesn't want to renew it.
So Working Systems are suing South Australia for using a product without a license but won't renew said license.
I can't wait to see the court verdict on this one. It smells like abandonware to me. It probably won't help with old software in the rest of the world but it could set a legal precedent for Australia. Microsoft doesn't want to sell Windows 7 licenses anymore in a few months? You can legally copy and use it.
"The company said a licence extension for CHIRON was not possible because it was too old and no longer supported."
If you've never placed a support call in the 13 years since installation, if you've got backup hardware that will still run the stuff, if it's not connected to a network (MS-DOS presumably isn't), if it's not getting patched (because it's not connected to a network), then there's no risk of a change breaking the existing configuration -- and in those circumstances, what does it matter if it's not "supported?"
Sorry, vendor. I'm sorry that your old software was so un-agile that it was actually "done" in the '90s and probably needs no further patches in order to remain fit for purpose until 2038. A pity for all vendors whose business models have pivoted towards Service As A Substitute for software, but fortunately, these guys never got on the upgrade treadmill. EPAS 2017: Hey, let's change the UX to "Flat!" this year so all the nurses have to relearn where the menu options are beneath that hamburger menu. It'll be hell for the end users, but the marketing guys think it looks great in a PowerPoint slide deck, and this is Enterprise Software; we're not trying to sell it to the physicians!
And sorry, devs. Sorry that the human body works pretty much the same today as it did in 200,000 years ago. And that basic medical care works pretty much the same today as it did 50 years ago. And that even the bureacracy "required" to oversee the recordkeeping associated with "meatbag came in, was assigned bed, was assigned physician, who performed care" doesn't change as fast the latest Javascript framework.
Some software is just Done.
The original company wrote software which worked, they decided that had been a mistake. Easier to con people and then stiff them on consultancy fees fixing stuff it. The old system is simply a reminder to everyone how it used to be.
You cannot force a company to sell licenses for a software they don't support anymore and maintain staff to maintain a piece of software the revenues cannot justify to.
Yes, but who is saying that they need "support" and a staff? That piece of software has worked for some 25 years now, I supposed that the support they need is none and they're just happy to be able to use it.
Fuck them! Keep using it!
Where does it indicate that the state is trying to force them to maintain a staff to support this software?
It seems very wrong to me that the company can tell the state to stop using a piece of software that they have been using for years. They can provide a license that offers no support, no updates and no warranty of any kind.
The software should be considered abandonware and part of the public domain. Anyone should be free to download and use it for any purpose -- software vendor is not culpable for damages from its use.
A DOS based software product is likely to be more secure from remote hacks, and from cloud-provider based security breaches. Thanks to VM technology, this program could be usable for decades!
It works for Oracle...
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Their "ownership" is really a government granted license, a privilege. And it can and should be revoked when they abuse it. End of life and end of the copyright license should occur at the same time.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Eminent domain. Works for land, it can work for copyrights and patents. And yes, American courts have done so.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sure, that's fine. But what you can do is simply declare the software to be in the Public Domain, since the only thing stopping that from happening automatically is government fiat in the first place!
Careful what you wish for.
"His name was James Damore."
There are a number of other old patient administration systems (all UNIX based, mostly SunOS but OpenVMS as well, all delivered by terminal session) that are in use currently and hospitals that use them are being migrated to the new single system but it's a slow process as the new system does more than just patient administration, it replaces a number of other old systems as well.
So that it's MS-DOS based is just plain wrong.
I don't want to get into the licensing issues with Working Systems.
How do I know this? I work for the department..