David More <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > Sorry I meant to differentiate between the code Extensia / DSTC have and > openEHR conceptual IP. > > I agree with your comment regards the conceptual basis of openEHR and > the specs which the > foundation have tried (for good reason) to make freely usable. > > My understanding was that DSTC was contracted to develop the software > for the trial > (testing openEHR /Archetype concepts) and that as a contractor the > person who pays for the > contract owns what is produced - in the same way as when I do work for a > client they own the report.
It depends entirely on how the contract was framed. However, there is a history of C'wealth govt contracts ceding all the IP in pilot projects entirely to the contractor - an issue on which the former GPCG had something to say, I think. > For Extensia to take the contracted software there should have been a > return to the > Government - or not so? or maybe the Government gave the IP away? I strongly suspect that latter. > Also how does this fit with the comments I seem to have heard that Argus > was developed > using government funds and so is released as open source and not owned > by Argus? As I understood it they can charge for services but not for the > software > (except the advanced server extensions etc they have written). Surely the > software ownership > gets blurred as ArgusConnect works and improves the software? David, I think you need to google for an introduction to software licensing in general and open source licensing in particular, and then read it - you are confused between ownership of copyright and the granting of a license which allows others to use that copyrighted material. Open source licensing does *not* involve giving away copyright ownership. The copyright in open source software must be very clearly "owned" by one or more parties. The only thing that is granted to others is a license to use, share, modify that copyrighted material in certain ways under specific conditions. Also, open source licensing in no way precludes a software provider from charging for that software. In the Argus case, my understanding was that a condition of the initial funding was that the resulting software be made available under an open source license. But the ownership of the copyright in that software would always vest entirely in Argus, or in the Heatlth Openware Foundation which was set up as the IP holding organisation. > I guess this area can get quite messy - hence your preference for GPL > licences etc? GPL or any other open source licensing has no bearing on copyright ownership. For software, I prefer Mozilla or BSD licenses, but GPL is also fine, but it really depends on the nature of the software and on how it will be promoted, and how it was funded - no one right answer. For openEHR archetypes, I do think that a "strong copyleft" license is essential (and currently not used for these), but none of the extant open source software licenses are exactly suitable for openEHR archetype definitions - a custom license is really needed, I feel, related in spirit and operation to the GPL but not the GPL. Tim C > On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:30:26 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > > David More wrote: > >> Hi Tim, > >> > >> I think you will find DSTC was a CRC like entity that had a mix of > government and > private funding with an objective of developing intellectual property > >> that could later be commercialised. > >> > >> One activity DSTC were involved in (before becoming Extensia) was the > Healthconnect > South Brisbane Trial where they provided some form of archetype based > >> EHR for use in the trial. (The results of this trial I don't believe > have ever been > made public and I am not sure how successful the trial was) > >> > >> Mark Gibson - I assume - or someone else from Extensia - complained > on my blog recently > that when reviewing the "Children of HealthConnect" I had left them > >> out but offered no information as to the status of the trial. > >> > >> The IP issue for openEHR must be very complex since GEHR was > originally an EU Framework > Project paid for by the European Commission. Since then all sorts > >> of university and private funds must have been used. Then the DSTC > trial, which added > to the IP, was Australian Government funded. And Qld probably paid > >> for some component as well. > >> > >> Just what Extensia can actually sell might be a bit tricky to figure > out I suspect. Fun > for the IP lawyers? > >> > > > > No, the IP issues surrounding openEHR are quite clear, I think. As far > > as I know, no patents hon openEHR ideas have been applied for anywhere > > by anyone, and the openEHR specification documents (gaps as found by > Jon Patrick > notwithstanding) are all published under a license which allows anyone > to > > freely implement the ideas and specs that they contain. Can't ask for > better than that. > > > > There are some issues surrounding the licensing of archetype > definitions published by > the openEHR Foundation and Ocean Informatics. The intent of the current > > licensing arrangements is that the archetype definitions be freely > shareable but the > actual licenses (two different ones apply to "commercial" versus "non- > > commercial" settings) are not right in my lay > > opinion (details too arcane and boring to discuss here, but I will > write it all up soon) > - basically the "commercial" license, is too liberal and does not > > enforce "copyleft" arrangements to prevent data lock-in, and the > "non-commercial" > license is way too restrictive and prevents academics and individuals > from > > doing what they need to do. However, the basic intent of the licensing > is right and the > legal details of the licenses can readily be fixed by a competent > > information technology IP lawyer (and I have recommended such a person > to them). > > > > So the only other IP issue relates to software implementation of > openEHR ideas and > standards, and the situation there is surely that each company concerned > > owns the software IP, public funding for it in Extensia's (or DSTC's) > case > notwithstanding. That's not unusual: public R&D funds are provided all > the time to > > enable private companies to develop privately held IP - it is a > feature of our economic > and political system (which doesn't mean that it is right, just that > > it happens all the time). > > > > Tim C > > > >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:52:43 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > >>> David More wrote: > >>>> Tim and All, > >>>> > >>>> Just what is going on here?. > >>>> > >>>> After 15 years we are being asked to wait till January to be given > a pricing model > for > >>>> > >> something that has not been shown to be deployable in any real > >>>> sense. I tend not to buy "pigs in pokes" as they say. > >>>> > >>> Mark Gibson from Extensia indicated that their pricing models should > be determined by > early next year. Extensia have not been doing openEHR and GEHR for > >>> 15 years - they are a private company which has, I understand, been > spun off from the > publicly-funded DSTC organisation. DSTC has received public > >>> HealthConnect funds since the early 00's to develop openEHR-based > software for > HealthConnect trials (see for example > >>> http://www.cio.com.au/index.php?id=601636892&eid=-601 ). > >>> > >>> It will be most interesting to see the pricing models for the > openEHR technology which > Extensia has developed with these public funds. > >>> > >>>> If they have something that actually works how about a six month > free license for > those > >>>> > >> like yourself and Jon Patrick to evaluate the material in their > >>>> labs and provide some feedback to the rest of us. > >>>> > >>> They have not ruled that out - talks will now be opened on this sort > of arrangement, I > suspect. > >>> > >>> Tim C > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 08:23:13 +1100, Tim Churches wrote: > >>>>> Hugh Leslie wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Tim > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are right - software has been in development for many years - > I remember being > >>>>>> > >>>> shown a working gehr kernel back in about 2000 and a number of > kernels > >>>> > >>>>>> have been built since. > >>>>>> > >>>>> yes, and perhaps with that in mind you can understand the > >>>>> disappointment, which has begun to turn into frustration and > outright annoyance when > >>>>> > >>>> Ocean Informatics and openEHR people pop up at every health > informatics > >>>> > >>>>> conference and in every online health informatics forum promoting > openEHR as the > best > >>>>> > >>>> way forward. That may be the case, but those of us who have been > around > >>>> > >>>>> for a while can't help but think, and say, that it also seems to > be a bloody slow > way > >>>>> > >>>> forward. > >>>>> I suspect that the slow pace has been due to a lack of big > investors (either public > or > >>>>> > >>>> private sector) to back this project. I'm not sure whether the lack > of > >>>> > >>>>> investors has been because Ocean Informatics has not sought such > funds, or whether > it > >>>>> > >>>> wanted to retain independence (other people's money always comes > with > >>>> > >>>>> strings attached), or whether investors were dubious. I can > understand why many > >>>>> > >> existing > >>>> health informatics software vendors might be frightened by openEHR, > >>>>> because it promises technologies which will undermine much of > their existing > business > >>>>> > >>>> models. But there are many other sources of R&D funding, and I am > >>>>> surprised these have not been able to have been tapped to > accelerate development. > >>>>> > >>>>> However, I was sent a private message by Mark Gibson of Extensia, > further describing > >>>>> > >>>> their complete, production-ready openEHR system. He was reluctant > to > >>>> > >>>>> post the message to the GPCG list after the mauling he got > following his first > >>>>> > >> message, > >>>> but I told him that if he wants to flog software to GPs, he'd > better > >>>> > >>>>> get used to being mauled - they're a tough market. Anyway, he > indicated that pricing > >>>>> > >>>> models for their stuff will be ready early in the new year, at > stage > >>>> > >>>>> their may be real enthusiasm amongst local developers and academic > units to evaluate > >>>>> > >>>> what they have done - provided the pricing is reasonable. > >>>>>> What we have developed more recently has not come > >>>>>> from nothing but is based on all the work and experience that has > gone before. The > >>>>>> > >>>> release of version 1.0 of openEHR has enabled us to work > confidently > >>>> > >>>>>> towards commercially useable software and we are at that point > now. > >>>>>> > >>>>> "Commercially usable" means that you are willing to let the > software out of your > >>>>> > >>>> development labs and let other people install it in their servers > to test > >>>> > >>>>> and evaluate. Have you actually reached that point? Thomas Beale > indicated not just > >>>>> > >> two > >>>> or three weeks ago on the openhealth list. > >>>>>> My point about version 1.0 is that this is giving people > confidence that things are > >>>>>> > >>>> settled and are not likely to change dramatically. I think we are > >>>>>> likely to see a lot more software becoming available in the next > 12 months from > other > >>>>>> > >>>> sources. > >>>>> Yup, see comments above re Extensia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tim C > >>>>> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>> From: Tim Churches [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 14 December 2006 8:57 PM > >>>>>>> To: Hugh Leslie; [email protected] > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Where is openEHR going? - was RE: [GPCG_TALK] > Request for XML dump > for > >>>>>>> > >>>> RAIL > >>>>>>> Hugh Leslie wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Tim > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I wish you would sit down with us and have a look at what > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> we are doing > >>>>>>>> rather than 'be a cynical bastard'! > >>>>>>> Well I did spend many hours corresponding with Thomas Beale and > Sam Heard a few > >>>>>>> > >> weeks > >>>> ago, trying to work out where you guys were up to with > >>>>>>> implementation. Trying to get details was like trying to get > blood out of the > >>>>>>> > >>>> proverbial. I asked Sam Heard if I could forward messages which > Thomas, he > >>>> > >>>>>>> and you had sent to me in reply to the openhealth list, but Sam > asked that I > didn't, > >>>>>>> > >>>> so instead I have done my best to accurately convey what I > >>>>>>> understood the situation was. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We have appreciated your support over > >>>>>>>> the years and I can understand your frustration, however we > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> have been > >>>>>>>> working really hard with few resources - most of the software > described below is > >>>>>>>> > >> the > >>>> product of small teams working with > >>>>>>> very small > >>>>>>>> budgets. Its only really in the last 12 months since > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> version one was > >>>>>>>> released that all this has happened. > >>>>>>> What I find remarkable, and I think that I am not alone in this, > is that for a > >>>>>>> > >> project > >>>> which has been under development for a decade or more, and which > >>>>>>> has been described and promoted at conferences, on the openEHR > and other Web sites > >>>>>>> > >> and > >>>> in various papers for nearly that long, serious effort to actually > >>>>>>> build software implementations of the ideas has only taken place > in the last 12 > >>>>>>> > >>>> months. Clearly I am an empiricist (which is a highly forgivable > trait in > >>>> > >>>>>>> an epidemiologist) rather than a theoretician. However, I > suspect that many others > >>>>>>> > >> on > >>>> this list share my empirical leanings. > >>>>>>>> I have included part of the text of the email I sent to you > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> recently > >>>>>>>> and again would be happy to sit down with you and show you > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> where we are at. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, I'm glad you have reproduced this email because I asked you, > Sam Heard and > >>>>>>> > >> Thomas > >>>> Beale whether I could forward the information to the openhealth > >>>>>>> list, Sam replied "We'd rather you didn't." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ALL > >>>>>>>> of this software was demonstrated at the Ocean stand at HIC > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> this year, > >>>>>>>> including taking HL7v2 pathology and radiology results and > storing them as > openEHR > >>>>>>>> > >>>> compositions in the database. > >>>>>>>> We as a company at the moment are more concerned about > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> having too much > >>>>>>>> work and too much interest rather than not enough. Most of > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> this is in > >>>>>>>> Europe, and I for one am proud to be part of an Australian > company that is doing > >>>>>>>> > >>>> world recognised work in this area. > >>>>>>>> "We currently have demonstrable software that: > >>>>>>>> - creates archetypes (the ocean archetype editor and a > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> java archetype > >>>>>>>> editor). > >>>>>>>> - We can take the archetypes and create templates from > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> them which you > >>>>>>>> can use to build gui forms using a drag and drop process. > (Ocean Template > Designer) > >>>>>>>> > >> - We have worked with clients who have taken these guis > >>>>>>> and used them > >>>>>>>> to enter data and save the data into our repository. (Ocean > EhrBank) - EhrBank is > >>>>>>>> > >> an > >>>> openEHR repository which will store any archetyped data (the ocean > >>>>>>>> kernel sits on top of it providing the ability to build openEHR > objects from > >>>>>>>> > >>>> archetypes or templates. > >>>>>>>> - We have a query editor that allows you to build sql like > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> queries to > >>>>>>>> query the data and we have clients in Turkey that have > successfully demonstrated > >>>>>>>> > >> this > >>>> functionality for themselves. > >>>>>>>> - We have software that allows you to display data queried > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> from the > >>>>>>>> repository in a web page. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We also have a terminology service that is well integrated into > the tools and > >>>>>>>> > >> allows > >>>> you to build pre-defined queries in snomed etc. These can then be > >>>>>>>> used in a gui to allow clinicians to select terms. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We are not the sort of company that hypes up its wares and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> so Tom is > >>>>>>>> being honest with you in saying that these systems have not > been tested in high > >>>>>>>> > >>>> volume mission critical situations (although volume testing of the > >>>>>>>> repository is going on as we speak.) These > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> tools have > >>>>>>>> been out there being demonstrated and tested by real clients > for at least 6 > months > >>>>>>>> > >>>> and we have generated a lot of interest > >>>>>>> across Europe > >>>>>>>> (In particular Turkey, the Netherlands and Denmark and > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> there is a lot of interest in the UK). > >>>>>>>> Most of these tools have been built since openEHR v1.0 was > released > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hugh is referring to Version 1.0 of the openEHR > >>>>>>> specifications, not Version 1.0 of a software implementation of > those > >>>>>>> > >> specifications. > >>>>>>>> so in > >>>>>>>> fact the timelines have been particularly spectacular in my > opinion especially > >>>>>>>> > >> since > >>>> we have done most of it under our own > >>>>>>> steam. We can > >>>>>>>> demonstrate the full chain that you referred to but not all > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> of it is > >>>>>>>> as slick as we would like it yet (that said, we think its > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> all pretty > >>>>>>>> slick!) If you were at HIC this year, you would have seen this > all working at the > >>>>>>>> > >>>> stand, and we have come a long way since then. > >>>>>>>> We are definitely ready to start some small implementations > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> and there > >>>>>>>> are opportunities in Australia as well as Europe (and the > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> US as Sam mentioned.)" > >>>>>>>> Apart from these things, Tom and I were invited to an > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> eclipse meeting > >>>>>>>> in Europe recently to discuss an eclipse version of the > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> openEHR tools > >>>>>>>> and this process is on-going. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards Hugh > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I forgot to mention that there is the beginnings of an > archetype repository > >>>>>>>> > >> available > >>>> from the openEHR web site and the > >>>>>>> Ocean web site. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, thanks, but I don't see that any of this is inconsistent > with my take on where > >>>>>>> > >> you > >>>> are at (reproduced below) which I posted to thsi list this > >>>>>>> morning. As I said, I would have just used your words but Sam > Heard asked me not > to. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I look forward to getting my hands on completed and > >>>>>>> ready-to-evaluate openEHR software components. Demonstrations > don't impress, I > need > >>>>>>> > >> to > >>>> be able to use the software > >>>>>>> components myself, with my data, in the privacy of my server. If > you are not at > that > >>>>>>> > >>>> stage of development, then that's OK, but don't be surprised if the > >>>>>>> epithets "glacial" and "geological" are being bandied around, > given that openEHR > >>>>>>> > >> has > >>>> now been promoted to us as an imminent solution to our health data > >>>>>>> management woes for many, many years now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> However, the Extensia suite sounds interesting. Let's hope it > doesn't cost the > >>>>>>> > >> earth. > >>>>>>> Tim C > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim > Churches Sent: Thursday, > >>>>>>>>> > >> 14 > >>>> December 2006 8:50 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Request for XML dump for RAIL > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> David Guest wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> The data is identified as such and grouped in a > >>>>>>> hierarchy. But its > >>>>>>>>>>> description and constraints are entirely open and > >>>>>>>>> undefined. I guess > >>>>>>>>>>> its a useful lowest common denominator > >>>>>>>>>> Does anyone think openEHR will ever produce the goods? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There has been correspondence on the openhealth mailing list > regarding this > issue > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> recently. David More quipped about > >>>>>>> "geological > >>>>>>>>> timescales", perhaps with some justification. To summarise and > paraphrase > >>>>>>>>> > >> (accuratey > >>>> I hope) the thread: the openEHR > >>>>>>> people assure > >>>>>>>>> us that several private firms are using openEHR-based systems > in deployed > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> proprietary vertical health apps, and that lots > >>>>>>> of profs and > >>>>>>>>> students in various universities are studying and > >>>>>>> tinkering with it. > >>>>>>>>> The openEHR specifications have been accepted as a > >>>>>>> proposed standard > >>>>>>>>> (but not ratified or approved as a standard as yet). > Furthermore, Ocean > >>>>>>>>> > >> Informatics > >>>> and the openEHR Foundation are > >>>>>>> themselves working > >>>>>>>>> on a suite of tools which actually implement the ideas behind > openEHR, but these > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> tools are in different stages of completeness: tools to define and > >>>>>>>>> edit openEHR archetype definitions are > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> complete > >>>>>>>>> and available as open source. Tools to actually store and > retrieve data using > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> openEHR archetypes are at alpha or beta stages in the openEHR > secret > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> laboratory, but have not been fully tested > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> and are not > >>>>>>>>> ready for production use. Thomas Beale has offered access to > an openEHR engine > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> hosted in the Ocean Informatics labs, to be > >>>>>>> accessed > >>>>>>>>> via a proprietary Web service interface requiring the use of a > Microsoft C# .NET > >>>>>>>>> > >> DLL > >>>> on the client side, for capability-testing purposes by > >>>>>>>>> interested parties (contact Thomas Beale at Ocean Informatics > if you are > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> interested). All these openEHR tools still under development may or > may not > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> be open sourced in the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> future - the > >>>>>>>>> Ocean Informatics and openEHR people need to investigate > business models. Other > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> parts of the openEHR puzzle, such as a > >>>>>>> shared library > >>>>>>>>> of openEHR archetype definitions, and a full query language, > are still on the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> drawing board or in only early stages of > >>>>>>> implementation. > >>>>>>>>> Oh, there is also an open source version of an openEHR > storage/retrieval kernel > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> being written in Sweden, but it > >>>>>>> is not yet > >>>>>>>>> complete either. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I asked the same questions of the Ocean Informatics and > openEHR people in 2003, > >>>>>>>>> > >> and > >>>> after much email correspondence and head scratching, I was > >>>>>>>>> assured that usable, production-quality openEHR > implementations would be > available > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> quite soon. The same assurances were given just a few weeks ago. I > >>>>>>>>> conclude that they are indeed a bit further along now with > actual implementation > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> than they > >>>>>>> were three > >>>>>>>>> years ago, but still have quite a way to go, but it is > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> very hard to > >>>>>>>>> extrapolate the progress line to divine when it might > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> cross the V1.0 > >>>>>>>>> boundary, although the fact that they were working on GEHR > (the predecessor to > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> openEHR) about 15 years ago, and the > >>>>>>> openEHR has been > >>>>>>>>> going for nearly a decade might provide some clues. Perhaps > the remaining > distance > >>>>>>>>> > >>>> is being halved with every passing year? Or perhaps I am just a > >>>>>>>>> cynical bastard? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tim C > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> __________ NOD32 1920 (20061213) Information __________ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>>>>>> http://www.eset.com > >>>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Gpcg_talk mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk > >>>>> > >>>>> __________ NOD32 1922 (20061214) Information __________ > >>>>> > >>>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>>>> http://www.eset.com > >>>>> > >>> __________ NOD32 1922 (20061214) Information __________ > >>> > >>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > >>> http://www.eset.com > > > > > > __________ NOD32 1922 (20061214) Information __________ > > > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > > http://www.eset.com _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
