Hi Bert, This is a good and timely post. We are just finalising an Affiliate License agreement with SNOMED. It has not been formally signed off but the broad approach is that we are allowed to put SNOMED bindings in archetypes as long as it is made clear to users of those archetypes that they must be appropriately SNOMED-licensed if they want to use those bindings in run-time systems. This is roughly consistent with the approach reached with FHIR.
As far as I am aware none of the current bindings in archetypes force the use of SNOMED at run-time. So practically, no-one should be concerned about using archetypes with SNOMED bindings, unless they intend to use SNOMED within their systems, in which case they should make sure they are covered by a national or individual licence. Regards, Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype: ianmcnicoll email: [email protected] twitter: @ianmcnicoll Co-Chair, openEHR Foundation [email protected] Director, freshEHR Clinical Informatics Ltd. Director, HANDIHealth CIC Hon. Senior Research Associate, CHIME, UCL On 12 April 2017 at 09:56, Bert Verhees <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I needed to clean up archetypes from SNOMED bindings because of > license-reasons, I "grepped" the local directory from CKM. > To my surprise I found there SNOMED bindings in over 50 archetypes. > This can, I think, be a problem for countries which have no SNOMED license. > Or is the opinion that SNOMED is allowed in archetypes even in > non-member-countries. > > Bert > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_ > lists.openehr.org >
_______________________________________________ openEHR-clinical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
