you do not need to pay, but the licensing requirements are quite specific about what kind of attribution is required.
Grahame On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Stefan Sauermann < sauermann at technikum-wien.at> wrote: > Hello! > We are using LOINC in Austria for coding lab results on a national scale. > As far as I know nobody needs to pay anything to Regenstrief to do so. > > I am not aware of any "must mention Regenstrief" requirements, but I may > miss something. > Greetings from Vienna, > Stefan > > Stefan Sauermann > > Program Director > Biomedical Engineering Sciences (Master) > > University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien > Hoechstaedtplatz 5, 1200 Vienna, Austria > P: +43 1 333 40 77 - 988 > M: +43 664 6192555 > E: stefan.sauermann at technikum-wien.at > > I: www.technikum-wien.at/mbe > I: www.technikum-wien.at/ibmt > I: www.healthy-interoperability.at > > Am 13.11.2014 10:07, schrieb Grahame Grieve: > > my advice from LOINC/regenstrief is that it does apply > > Grahame > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Thomas Beale < > thomas.beale at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > >> >> Something that has become clear in CIMI, and will affect openEHR, 13606 >> and most likely any archetype developer is that acknowledgements of 3rd >> party copyrights and trademarks need to be made. The most obvious common >> one is likely to be for SNOMED CT codes in archetype bindings (Stan Huff at >> Intermountain is still working on whether such acknowledgements are needed >> for LOINC codes). However, it could be for anything, e.g. rights to use a >> scale like Barthel or Waterlow. >> >> At the moment there is no dedicated place in the model for this >> particular meta-data. It could just go in 'other_details' but I suspect >> that we need to be more precise than that. Consider for example, the >> openEHR Barthel scale archetype - it currently carries this text in the >> 'Use' section: >> >> Note: >> The Maryland State Medical Society holds the copyright for the Barthel >> Index. It may be used freely for non-commercial purposes with the >> following citation: >> Mahoney FI, Barthel D. ?Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index.? >> Maryland State Med Journal 1965;14:56-61. Used with permission. >> >> Permission is required to modify the Barthel Index or to use it for >> commercial purposes. >> >> This seems less than optimal, and is certainly not going to be reliably >> tool-separable from the main 'Use' content, since the word 'Note:' and the >> placement of this text are purely local choices. >> >> There is another issue here. The acknowledgement text actually included >> in the archetype needs to be minimal, and as far as legally possible not >> contain volatile elements that can change. Therefore, I think the general >> approach needs to be as is typically done with open source licences: not >> including the whole text, but including a reliable URL to the licence text >> either from the issuer (e.g. Creative Commons CC-BY page) or an agreement >> between the publisher and the licensor (e.g. between IHTSDO and CIMI for >> the use of SNOMED CT, and details of that use). >> >> I have updated the meta-data page on the wiki >> <http://www.openehr.org/wiki/display/ADL/Knowledge+Artefact+Meta-data>to >> indicate what I think is the requirement - see end of the main table. >> >> I am increasingly of the feeling that we need to act on this soon. >> >> - thomas >> >> _______________________________________________ >> openEHR-clinical mailing list >> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org >> >> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org >> > > > > -- > ----- > http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at healthintersections.com.au > / +61 411 867 065 > > > _______________________________________________ > openEHR-clinical mailing listopenEHR-clinical at > lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org > > > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame at healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20141113/7ceb12ce/attachment.html>
