Thanks for replying Sam! Erik Wrote (to openEHR-technical at openehr.org): >> Was that whitepaper formally ratified by the new board, or by the old board, >> or is it's current state just a suggestion by Sam?
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > [Sam Heard] The whitepaper was ratified by the participants in the planning > process, the current Board (Profs. Kalra, Ingram and myself) and the new > Transitional Board. This is a bit worrying for the period until a broader board can be elected. I was hoping that somebody within the new board would be interested enough and have time to take licensing issues and community feedback seriously, let's hope that the board does a bit more research and community dialogue before ratifying a new version of this whitepaper. Could somebody from the board please confirm that you'll take a serious look at this in the near future? Erik wrote: > What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the > suggested new structure with an elected board start? On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > [Sam Heard] I for one am very happy to express a date for elections if > organisations embrace these arrangements. Clearly if there is no interest in > participating from industry or organisations then we would have to think > again. I suspect we will then move to election of the Board by Members but > it is our wish to provide a means of determining the governance for > openEHR?s key sponsors. The aim is to balance the Members with governance > from the funders and sponsors. Some may prefer a democratic organisation top > to bottom; we do not think this will achieve the best results. So there is no absolute end date set. :-( The "if organisations embrace these arrangements" part is worrying, especially since we already have seen failed attempts at getting buy-in from "organisations". Can't you set an absolute latest date (e.g. at the very latest December 31, 2012) when the new arrangements will start no matter if big organisations have made use of the introductory offer of buying a position in the board? If not, we risk having an interim board forever, and we really don't need any more delays in the journey towards community-driven governance. If you get buy-in from the number of big players you want before that absolute end date then there would be nothing stopping you from doing the transition earlier than the "latest date". Erik wrote: > The thoughts behind the third point in the "Principles of licencing" are > understandable, but as stated over and over again, e.g. at... > http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696 > ...the SA part of CC-BY-SA won't help against copyright and patent abuse. > Only fighting possible upcoming bad patents in particular and bad patent > laws in general might save the openEHR community form patent abuse. On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 17:58, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > [Sam Heard] If this is true then the SA part of the license has no value. If > this is true then I have not heard this before. I am very glad if you might have started to see the lack of value in SA for archetypes. Using pure CC-BY (for both archetypes AND specifications) would make the first six points under "Principles of licensing" unnecessary and reduce confusion. At the same time I am very worried about the totally amazing information blocking filter you must have built in if you have "not heard" this argument before. Several people have been questioning your reasoning on this very point for years! On the official openEHR-wikipage set up for this particular question when community feedback was requested... http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal ...you have several people (including Tom Beale) in clear text saying that CC-BY-SA will NOT protect against patent attacks. (Scroll down to the heading "Discussion summaries regarding CC-BY versus CC-BY-SA for content models".) How on earth could you and the entire board miss that when writing up the draft for the transition whitepaper and when making earlier license decisions? One thing that however is very efficient in fighting patent trolls is "prior art". Thus one of the best protections regarding archetypes etc. is to have as much as possible of development completely public, indexed and archived by trusted sites (like http://www.archive.org/). This means always making sure to allow enough search engines and not requiring login in order to read archetype discussions and thoughts in development repositories (things like the CKM). The earlier date the mention of an idea can be traced back to, the more patent claims it will protect against. Best Regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733 P.s. I agree with Pablo & Diego that we need to talk about communication between several repositories, not just discuss the current openEHR-hosted CKM.
