Hi Shinji, That's exactly what I tried to point in another mail to the lists: local and regional openEHR organizations should be supported by openEHR and we need to put it into the white paper.
-- Kind regards, Ing. Pablo Pazos Guti?rrez LinkedIn: http://uy.linkedin.com/in/pablopazosgutierrez Blog: http://informatica-medica.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/ppazos > Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:13:45 +0300 > Subject: Re: openEHR Transition: two procedural and one licensing question > From: skoba at moss.gr.jp > To: openehr-technical at openehr.org > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110906/c713f558/attachment.html>
