Hi Stef! On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 22:15, Stef Verlinden <stef at vivici.nl> wrote: > Good that you bring up the SA + or - discussion again.
I wish I wouldn't have to. I'd rather focus on implementation and research. > In order to make the > best decision can you please provide us with these arguments The arguments AGAINST SA have been publicly available for years on the openEHR community wikipage set up by Thomas Beale for exactly that purpose: http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal Do read that wikipage and follow the links there to the mail discussions. What is it that you think is missing or unclear in the arguments against SA? The arguments FOR SA have, according to me at least, not been properly explained publicly, but some argument has obviously been strong somehow behind the locked doors in board discussions. Clarification from Sam and the board has been sought for several years, e.g. in the followup questions directed to Sam since 04-Jun-2010 at http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/oecom/openEHR+IP+License+Revision+Proposal?focusedCommentId=13041696#comment-13041696 >and, if possible, with the names of those companies/organisations. No, because: 1. I don't know if it was said in confidence or not 2. It's about time they, and all other openEHR-related companies/organisations, engage themselves in the future of openEHR and figure out their possible positions in this ecosystem. Until now there has not been a proper chance for them to engage on the same premises as Ocean Informatics and UCL, but now it's about time to wake up :-) Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733
