Hi! Kudos for moving forward!
Plans seem to take some promising directions even though that whitepaper at... http://www.openehr.org:8888/openehr/321-OE/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/openEHR%20Foundation%20moving%20forward.pdf ...still needs some serious editing in order to better strengthen trust in openEHRs future. *1. First a procedural question:* On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 03:00, Sam Heard (forwarded via Thomas Beale) wrote: > I am writing on behalf of the new Transitional Board of openEHR to share our > plans to take openEHR to a new level of operations... 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? I know for sure that some people in the acknowledgements... > Acknowledgements: Thank you to David Ingram, Dipak Kalra, Thomas Beale, > Martin van der Meer and Tony Shannon for assisting in the planning. ...would likely object to part of it's current content. *2. A second procedural question:* What is the mandate period of the transitional board? When will the suggested new structure with an elected board start? That date seems to be missing in the mail and in the document, but having an end date is very likely important for building trust in any kind of stated interim governance system (ask the people in the middle east and northern Africa...). *3. A document content change suggestion:* Remove the CC-BY-SA part in the licencing discussion (page 5) since it makes the document authors and anybody ratifying it look incompetent. Saying that original things are CC-BY and that derivative models should be CC-BY-SA is just plain stupid. Then the originals are NOT CC-BY. It's just as silly as saying that a piece of open source code is licenced under Apache II licence but that any derivative code must be licenced under GPL... 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. A more practical way is to enforce good licencing (e.g. CC-BY) upon import of archetypes and archetyped data in real systems and tools. That will at the same time protect against anybody sneaking in badly licenced stuff that is not derived from openEHR original archetypes (something that a CC-BY-SA scheme never will be able to protect against.) There are many other interesting things to discuss and clarify in the white paper, but let's start here :-) Again, thanks for working towards a more understandable openEHR foundation. Best regards, Erik Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/ Tel: +46-13-286733 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20110905/bcfa284f/attachment.html>
