Op 10-02-10 15:35, Gerard Freriks schreef: > Stef, > > It is a good step. > But not sufficient. >
> That OpenEHR artifacts are published with such a Creative Commons License > policy attached to it is a good thing, I agree. > But when a new Reference Model, Archetype Model, Template models change and > are published that decision is made by the owners because they own the IP and > can issue any new License policy they wish. > > Our customers do not want to be held hostage when they invest in the exiting > new technology based on En13606/openEHR. > They are taking enough risks already, they feel. > Then minutes ago you did not now about this, you were talking about the organization-model which would impose IP? No that is proven wrong and still you know it is not sufficient? How do you know what you customers feel about this new knowledge you just (ten minutes ago) heard of? I come back to this later, because your remarks do raise questions. _Anyone considering using OpenEHR, read carefully_ It looks to me that you misunderstand IP-laws. It is also impossible to attach IP to an RM-implementation. It is not patented, so anyone can build an implementation. Same story for the Archetype Model. You can only protect an idea by patents, on no other way. You can protect an implementation of an (ICT) idea by copyright on sourcecode, but that only applies to the specific implementation. Is there a patenting application? Do you know, does it seem likely? To me it does not. Let me explain: As soon as the OpenEhR foundation would consider that, it would be a big problem because many people volunteered, and I think OpenEHR would be quickly out of business. In my opinion it is impossible to patent it because many people volunteered, and a lot can be considered as "prior art" So if it is not patented, anyone can build an implementation without considering any IP. That is very sure. I have dealt a lot with patents. Anyone who does business with me can go to a lawyer to check, and if it is not true what I write in here, I pay the lawyer-bill. Conclusion: OpenEHR-foundation has no IP on implementations. Maybe there is IP on the published archetypes, IP in the form of copyright. I don't know. But if that is the case anyone is free to create his own archetypes, IP-free. _end of subject_ It looks to me as if you are looking for ways to publicly discouraging hospitals to use OpenEHR. Why is that? What is the matter Gerard? You used OpenEHR for years, you invested lots of time and money, even build your own implementation, and now you discovered that you cannot use it? That you have to pay? Where you sleeping that you did not think about these urgent IP-questions you bring up here? A strange story. regards Bert Verhees -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20100210/cf72bd20/attachment.html>
