The decision to make software Open Source is not transparent to everyone, and people tend to think, WHY do they let people see their code? Anyone could take it away and make business out of it. Anyone could find weaknesses and exploit them.

The current software landscape for medical doctors in Austria is, let's name it, a bit poor.

There is almost only one company left that serves over 70% of the EMR market for general practitioners, besides a few small isolated applications. A software provider monopoly is a disadvantage for customers in the long term: Due to non-existing market competition, prices are higher as necessary and levels of output are lower than they could be. Additionally, thousands of sensible patient data files are stored within the database of an EMR. Medical software has to store these files securely, and provide secure interfaces for data interchange with other trusted medical systems.

A medical software that is not OSS (Open Source Software) nowadays means that the software can only be trusted to a certain extent. While this seems to sound like paranoia, the NSA scandal in 2013 has proven the opposite.

Additionally despite having an official data format for exporting/importing patient data, it is old, not very well standardized, and lacks completeness: You are going to loose some patient data when switching your EMR. The current software companies have no real benefit of improving this interoperability - they would loose customers then.

So I want to state a few advantages of OSS and why we prefer it:

<dokuteaser>

You don't know if patient data are kept within your database of a closed source software. While it seems extremely unlikely that the software company illegally fetches data from you, you can neither prove nor deny it. You are fully dependent on the company's information.
With OSS, every step of the software is transparent and can be proven. </dokuteaser>

<dokuteaser>

OSS has better software quality. Not always. But being open for everyone, more people are looking critically at the code. Badly written code can not be hidden as easily as in closed, proprietary software.
Just imagine: You would not try to make typography errors on your business card, would you?Coverity Scan: OSS has better code quality </dokuteaser>

<dokuteaser>

A common misconception is that OSS is less secure because “anyone can read the code and hack into the system, because he sees the vulnerabilities”. This is only partly true.
Security vulnerabilities may be found easier in OpenSource software - and exploited, if they are found by the wrong people. But they can also be fixed easier – if they’re found by the right people. </dokuteaser>

<dokuteaser>

Be honest: you don't have much choice with proprietary software. If you want a certain feature implemented in your current EMR software, you can ask the company and hope they'll do it. If you want to switch the software company because of bad support, you loose some patient data when switching because the company didn't implement sufficient data export. With OSS, you have more options. While it does not mean that you have to be a programmer to have your ideas implemented, you can pay any programmer to implement a certain feature for you. Or keep the software, and go for another support company. </dokuteaser>

Software should not only be Open Source, it should also be free as in freedom. We think that free OSS offers the possibility that many small companies can take MedUX and build a support network for doctors - each company trying to make the software better, but having one standard base to build upon.

So we encourage you to fork MedUX on GitLab, improve it, and give your improvements back, to make it even better.