Good to hear about you! I hope everything is ok in Japan. I would encourage you to put the archetypes on the CKM anyway, as I would say that most of the available archetypes on the repository are in the same situation as your archetypes (the implicit 'use under your own responsibility')
2011/9/6 Shinji KOBAYASHI <skoba at moss.gr.jp>: > Hi All, > > I have been suffered by sever jet lag after long trip, while I have > been thinking about this new white > paper and our local activity. I could not find such localisation > activity in this white paper, but please > consider and mention about such local activity. > I would like to show these two proposals. > 1) Local activity support. > As a global standard, localisation to each country or area is > necessary. ?My three years experience > to implementation of the Ruby codes, archetypes and template, we need > lots of localisation efforts > for Japanese use. I think this experience may be available to localise > for other countries. East Asian > countries people is keen in openEHR development and their engagements > are promising for their > health care. > > 2) ?Premature artefact repository > CKM provides us well-considered archetypes and templates. This is a > great knowledge resource > for mankind. However, to incubate archetype as a common concept takes > long time like vintage wine. > On the other hand, I need more agile movement for daily development. I > have developed about 50 > archetypes and 6 templates. These artefacts are still premature to > evaluate on CKM, but I would > like to discuss about my artefacts on line with many people. Yes, it > will be a 99% junk repository, > but 1% diamond would be a precious for our community. As Major league > cannot exist without > minor leagues, I think CKM needs such minor artefacts groups. > I am preparing to share them on GitHub, because anyone can use > repository for each use by fork > and merge request is useful. > I think the licence of this repository would adopt CC-BY-SA, is this > OK, Erik and Ian? > > Cheers, > Shinji KOBAYASHI(in Japan, a path of typhoon.) > > 2011/9/6 Erik Sundvall <erik.sundvall at liu.se>: >> 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-technical mailing list >> openEHR-technical at openehr.org >> http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >> > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-technical mailing list > openEHR-technical at openehr.org > http://lists.chime.ucl.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical >
